It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is being gay a choice/lifestyle?

page: 19
0
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I am not attracted to women, whenever I don't want to be attracted. It can be controlled, not a big deal. It makes it easy to talk to a pretty girl without the need to look under her skirt.

I doubt, that gays are not attracted to females, onless they are over control of their emotions. Male gays can't be attracted to men, because whenever they express their feelings, they get really shocking result. I was in such situation with some gays, I know what they feel when they fall into a big accident. This proves, that gays can only be attracted to that specific individual they search for, and they find. They aren't generally attracted to all males. It is simple, and gays should know that.




posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Istvan
I am not attracted to women, whenever I don't want to be attracted. It can be controlled, not a big deal.


Well congrats Istvan, you're the onlyone in the world who is able to control his own sexual desires, I am afraid the rest of the world is not like that though.

Realizing you have these super-powers, would you also be able to control your desires to make yourself gay?
Wouldn't that be cool.

You're so full of it.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
One more link for TACHYON and Istvan to read.
This link explains a lot, regarding homosexuality and religion as well:

www.godmademegay.com...

It's quite long, so just in case you were not going to read it:


One. Homosexuality is an unchangeable nature; it is not a lifestyle choice.

Louise, this is an essential basis for understanding homosexuality. There may still be a few knowledgeable people who do not believe this, but practically all behavioral scientists now accept this statement as a fact. Down through history same-gender sex was universally considered to be acts by (heterosexual) people who had chosen to engage in perverted sex. Advances in the sciences, particularly psychology, in the last 100 years have shown that not all people are heterosexual; some are homosexual, and their homosexuality is an unchangeable nature, not a choice.



The concept of a homosexual nature first appeared in print in Europe in 1869 and in the United States in 1889. Acceptance of it spread slowly over the next 100 years. Freud accepted it and discussed homosexuality rather extensively in the first half of the twentieth century. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) officially recognized it in 1973 when it declassified homosexuality as being a mental illness. The American Psychological Association followed with similar action two years later.



Helmut Thielicke, a theologian conservatives respect highly and quote often, recognized in his work, The Ethics of Sex, written some forty years ago, that at least some gays and lesbians have "constitutional homosexuality," and therefore we must "accept" the fact that it is "incurable," that "our attitude toward [it] changes" [his italics]. and that it is "a divine dispensation" and "a talent that is to be invested (Luke 19:13f.)."1-1



Evidence that homosexuality is unchangeable includes: (a) ten thousand suicides each year of young homosexuals unwilling to face life with that orientation; (b) the high percentage of homosexuals who go to psychotherapists desperately wanting to change their orientation, and then (c) the very small percentage of them reportedly being changed after hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars being spent in psychotherapy; (d) the millions of homosexuals who remain "in the closet," not acting like homosexuals and not wanting anyone to learn of their orientation; (e) the thousands who are reported as coming to pastors and counselors devastated to have to recognize their unchangeable orientation and wanting assistance in dealing with it.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Interesting topic: I don't see it all as a choice or a lifestyle. I look at it from a evolution point of view as well. To me nature would be dooming any life form if a majority of the male or female population changed enough to go against reproduction within a species to bring new life. I see it as killing off part or pruning of the family tree or a way the world can slow down over population of our planet.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I see that the discussion about being gay or not still goes on. It proves that it is an important subject for our society.

My humble opinion is that sexual orientation is neither strictly hardcoded by nature or just a psychological situation. It starts from both, and affected by both.

Secondly, sex is there for a reason: to satisfy our inner desire of projecting our image, as it is perceived by us, onto the rest of society. The primary satisfaction that one gets from sex is that he/she is validated as a living entity.

People that are gay validate themselves through acting like the opposite sex. Straight people validate themselves through acting like their own sex.

We should then question ourselves, gay or straight, why we get validation from our sexual orientation. It is the only way to find the answer.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   


People that are gay validate themselves through acting like the opposite sex. Straight people validate themselves through acting like their own sex.


The problem I have with that opinion is how does it apply to the active, or dominant partner in the act/relationship, if a gay man wants to act like a woman how does he achieve this by being, how can I put this delicately, the penatrative instigator. Also how does it relate to people that can take both roles and finally how does it apply to the many gay people that do not indulge in penetrative sexual acts at all.

There are plenty of effeminate gay men who prefer being the dominant sexual partner and plenty of very straight acting gay men who prefer the passive role. To reduce it to a simple desire to ape the opposite sex is a little too simplistic.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Istvan
I mean, if a man is used to a man, he will "forget" his capability to be nice to women, and they will keep away from him. He then will remain with men, because they are easier to bait.








Istvan, this statement is not necessarily true . I worked for a man that was more "gay" then he was "bisexual", and he was a very wonderful person. I will explain my remarks alittle more.
first, I am a woman that has always loved the male species, and still do, ok.

Now, this man I worked for in a little cafe was really nice, easy to get along with, treated male and female alike with respect, he was in his mid to late 20's and his "helper", who happened to be a young male (mid 20's) were always together,...... I never thought anything of it that they spent a lot of time together. The helper became somewhat jealous of me because the boss and I would joke around and he would buy little gifts to give me to show his graditude to me for being a hard worker. Then one day the boss was gone and his "helper" decided to inform me that he was my boss's lover.
I was shocked, at first and a little disappointed , I found my boss very attractive, anyway, the boss comfirmed what his lover had told me, which after the shock wore off and I told the "helper" his jealiously was for nothing, everything went back to normal.
A few months later, the boss and i went to buy supplies, my boss told me that he was not only "gay" but he was into women too and he had a problem and wanted my opionion about it. It seemed that a women that he had been ingaged to three years ago and dumped him, wanted to start seeing him again , he didn't know what he should do because he was pretty sure he still had deep feelings for her, but he loved his "male-mate" too and wanted to know what I thought.
I told him to go see the woman to see if the "attraction" between them was still alive before he may do something he may regret or maybe not regret.
I do not know if he ever took my advice because I moved away, but I came across someone that knew my old boss and his lover a few years later, she told me that the two lovers we're no longer together but that's all she told me.

As I said before in a post in this thread, to each their own,...... as long as they don't bother me.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I wouldn't know. I'm straight and have no desire to be gay.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
But how can you be sure they are "true," infants are far to young to convey that message.









TACHYON, I agree with you completely on your above statement, but as I said, they do not really know it until they are in their teens,(IMO). I think that when the hormones kickin and they do not find the opposite-sex attractive but they do their own-sex, that's their first clue, IMO.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I hope Istvan and TACHYON bother to read www.godmademegay.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Moved this post to ester's thread on BTS.



[edit on 18-8-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
One more link for TACHYON and Istvan to read.
This link explains a lot, regarding homosexuality and religion as well:

www.godmademegay.com...

It's quite long, so just in case you were not going to read it:


One. Homosexuality is an unchangeable nature; it is not a lifestyle choice.

Louise, this is an essential basis for understanding homosexuality. There may still be a few knowledgeable people who do not believe this, but practically all behavioral scientists now accept this statement as a fact. Down through history same-gender sex was universally considered to be acts by (heterosexual) people who had chosen to engage in perverted sex. Advances in the sciences, particularly psychology, in the last 100 years have shown that not all people are heterosexual; some are homosexual, and their homosexuality is an unchangeable nature, not a choice.



The concept of a homosexual nature first appeared in print in Europe in 1869 and in the United States in 1889. Acceptance of it spread slowly over the next 100 years. Freud accepted it and discussed homosexuality rather extensively in the first half of the twentieth century. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) officially recognized it in 1973 when it declassified homosexuality as being a mental illness. The American Psychological Association followed with similar action two years later.



Helmut Thielicke, a theologian conservatives respect highly and quote often, recognized in his work, The Ethics of Sex, written some forty years ago, that at least some gays and lesbians have "constitutional homosexuality," and therefore we must "accept" the fact that it is "incurable," that "our attitude toward [it] changes" [his italics]. and that it is "a divine dispensation" and "a talent that is to be invested (Luke 19:13f.)."1-1



Evidence that homosexuality is unchangeable includes: (a) ten thousand suicides each year of young homosexuals unwilling to face life with that orientation; (b) the high percentage of homosexuals who go to psychotherapists desperately wanting to change their orientation, and then (c) the very small percentage of them reportedly being changed after hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars being spent in psychotherapy; (d) the millions of homosexuals who remain "in the closet," not acting like homosexuals and not wanting anyone to learn of their orientation; (e) the thousands who are reported as coming to pastors and counselors devastated to have to recognize their unchangeable orientation and wanting assistance in dealing with it.


The only reason it was changed from a mental illness was because the chief pscyhatriast was a flamer. There is no scientific evidence in this quote. There is no proof that human beings are born gay, no tests have been done to show that babies distinctly and conclusively prefer the same sex. It means nothing to me.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Of course it means nothing to you.
There's really nothing else for me to do but accept that there are ignorant people in this world, not because the right info is not handed to them, but because they choose to be.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Being gay is a drawing to the most "comfortable" relationship - that of the same sex - whether it's energy related or just "feeling comfortable" or just "fitting in"...(amongst others).

I do not believe being gay is "natural", ie being "born with it"...however, with all the artificial growth hormones (ie aestrogen - a female hormone) being used in food these days, it could even be an imbalance caused by these.

It could also be a "trigger" as someone mentioned earlier...

So, there are many reasons, however the main reason is the way you are bought up as a child.

Now some gay people say "as far as I can remember, I was always gay"...well, can you remember when you were 2...or 3? Not even you know what influences you expereinced when you were that young.

It is a choice based on your upbringing.

Regarding quite a few gay men; have you heard a child talk with the "girlie" voice? No - it is learnt - it is a choice.

JS



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Of course it means nothing to you.
There's really nothing else for me to do but accept that there are ignorant people in this world, not because the right info is not handed to them, but because they choose to be.


Sir, I am not ignorant becuase i prefer one view of the world, which may be different than yours. After all, I could just as easily have called you ignorant
.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   
The whole argument about gay rights is completely moot unless it is generally accepted that being gay is NOT a choice and that homosexuals are genetically predisposed to being attracted to people of the same sex. I offer this question: When (how old were you) did you consciously choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? Or did it just come natural for you? If you're honest with yourself then the answer should be that it just came naturally. Why is it such a leap for some to accept that for homosexuals it comes naturally as well. I offer this link which shows what MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS say about homosexuality:

www.apa.org...

Those who are still unconvinced, that homosexuals are naturally this way, choose to be ignorant and there's no point in continuing this discussion as they're probably so wrapped around some religious dogmatism that they're unable to see the truth even if it slapped them in the face.

For those who are willing to accept that gays/lesbians are born this way but still don't believe that they should be afforded the same rights/liberties (such as marriage, adoption etc) as heteros then please allow me to entertain this discussion further:

First, I am a happily married hetero-sexual male. As a political independent I generally believe that what people do should be their business (and it should be legal) as long as what they do doesn't negatively impact or otherwise adversely affect the rights or civil liberties of others.

I've heard many on the "right" argue that allowing gays the right to marry will destroy the "sanctity" of marriage. What sanctity exactly? The expression, the "sanctity of marriage", is nothing more than a simple Christian right wing political buzz word. The success or failure of my marriage has nothing to do with whether or not gays marry. It is completely and solely dependent on what my wife and I make of it; nothing else. Besides, whatever "sanctity" exists in marriage was diminished long ago when the government provided financial benefits to married couples through reduced taxes.

"But marriage is all about being able to support our society with procreation!! Gays/lesbians are unable to contribute through procreation and therefore should not be allowed to marry."

If this is your argument than the same restrictions should be applied to infertile couples or those who are too old to have children since they too are unable to "contribute".

"This issue is, relatively speaking, so small, and it affects so few, that we shouldn't even be discussing it; especially with issues such as terrorism on the table which have a much wider effect".

I would tend to agree were it not for one simple fact: The Christian right, including President Bush, would love to amend the constitution to prevent gays/lesbians in sharing in their fundamental right to express their love for each other through marriage. If this doesn't scare you it should! It scares the hell out of me!. The last thing I want is for the government to make any amendments to the constitution further restricting citizen's rights; especially if those amendments have origins stemming from the Bible. If we use religion or the Bible as a guide for changing laws or amending our constitution then I am, and those like me are, in a lot of trouble. After all, I like to occasionally go to strip clubs (covet), I tend to eat and drink a lot (glutton), and my goal is too make a lot of money (greed); just to mention a few of my indiscretions against the 7 deadly sins. And these are by CHOICE!! So if a group of people are being deprived of their rights just because of a "condition" over which they have no control what could happen to MY rights if some religious nuts get their hands on the Constitution.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he included a section that protected slaves who were born in this country. But Congress removed that section, and in deference to the south, protected the institution of slavery within the body of the Constitution. Clearly all men are created equal (unless you were black) and when taken in context of today, we know that this was wrong. But from where I sit there is little difference between what slaves endured politically years ago and what gays are enduring today. The only difference I see is that restricting the rights of slaves was purely economic and restricting the rights of gays is primarily religious.

I apologize for the long diatribe and I'll climb from down from my soapbox now.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON

Originally posted by Jakko
Of course it means nothing to you.
There's really nothing else for me to do but accept that there are ignorant people in this world, not because the right info is not handed to them, but because they choose to be.


Sir, I am not ignorant becuase i prefer one view of the world, which may be different than yours. After all, I could just as easily have called you ignorant
.


If you prefer one view of the world then your hardly unbiased when it comes to forming an objective opinion on the subject. Like for instance choosing to believe the psychiatric community would deliberately comprimise it's integrity by following the flawed self serving conclusions of some flamer????



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   
TACHYON, I pasted several links that would convince any intelligent objective ATSer of the fact that being gay is not a choice.
You however, do not want to admit you're wrong/allah is wrong.
This can have several reasons.

1. You're not an intelligent objective ATSer.
2. You are someone who can't admit their wrongs.
3. You're education is blocking you from learning/changing opinion.

Whatever it is, I realize there's not much more for me to say.
In a discussion where people disagree, people try to find proof and links that support their views.
You did not do this at all, you simply repeated your ignorant view, not caring to even explain why or how you obtained your flawed wisdom.

I did search for proof and found loads of links to support my opinion.
Your reply to those links is weak. (and that is an understatement)
You actually did not reply at all to the content of those links (probably cause you allready know you're wrong?), but simply said things like "that link proves nothing".

It's pretty clear to me you're an ignorant being, and I suspect your religion has something to do with that. In the islam (it appears to me) a lot of people are not actually looking for truth, but just for for ways to justify their primal, mindless, ignorant behavior.

Ah well, I don't have the illusion that I can ever convince you of the fact that you were wrong all along, so why am I even bothering making these long posts eh?
Over and out.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by Jakko]



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I read the quote and there was nothing that would convince anyone that it was a choice, it certainly did not convince me. I am sure there are many others on here who can say that those links have not changed their view. All that was stated on the links was just the rantings of some people who have no backup for their statements. Even statements that do not have proof are open to the gullibility test. I myslef am very gullible, but even those links did not fool me. You may make the claim that since I am gullible I may have been taught to think a certain way. Well I have I examine all the world has to offer and make a sound judgement based on those observations. Your links may be sway some people, but they are blinded by just words and have not relied on evidence to make them believe.

PS. And where is the proof that your quote refers to the "Behavioral scientists." I bet even they dont have an answer. The key word is BEHAVIOR, the scientsts think of homosexuality as a behavior. Why are behaviorial scientists studying it, and not genetic sceintists(there are studies but they are inconclusive).

[edit on 19-8-2004 by TACHYON]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join