Welcome to Gaia! ::


Personally I think people are born that way. (I'm damn sure I was born bi.)

But then, this is a traditionally held view by my religion. So maybe my viewpoint is slightly biased. But from what I observed this is a from birth thing, that you can't actually change. You can pretend to change it, but ultimately I think the person just ends up unhappy because of it. I'm fairly biased here though because of my own personal experiences.
Sexuality Cultural association is a choice, cultural association sexuality isn't. The entire debate is one big stupid equivocation.

EDIT : LOL I PUT IT BACKWARDS

Quotable Kitten

Queen Julia Augusta
Is being gay completely genetic, or is it also environmental?

I believe that people are born gay, therefore it just means they're born gay and slowly they begin to realise that they prefer the company of men (if they are male) or women (if they are female) in a romantic and/or sexual sense. Though, I wouldn't really consider being gay genetic, nor environmental. I just think some people are born one way, and other are born another way. It's hard to explain.

Queen Julia Augusta
Is it a choice or a partial choice?

I don't think it's choice at all. Some gay men and women may make the choice to be straight, but being gay isn't a choice.

Queen Julia Augusta
Is it possible some people are gay for one reason, and some are gay for another?

It's really difficult to explain my thoughts and opinions on gender and sexuality. Like... We don't even know why people are heterosexual. What if we were just conditioned to believe that marriage must be between a "man and a woman" because our religious ancestors believed that reproduction should be the only reason to love someone or want to be with that person (which is essentially true, if you think about it; a lot of religions state that attractive women are those who have good "childbearing hips" and what-not)?

Familiar Phantom

Oh god, this again? I didn't wake up one day and decide to start craving Nutella and pepperjack cheese, but I did decide to try it. We have to draw the distinction here between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. The latter is a choice, and the former isn't.

This is what happens when the religious right is allowed to frame issues for their own purposes, to which the left responds with endless refutations, making their case as if the tolerance of homosexuals depended on one thing and one thing alone: whether or not "they can help it."

Just think: black people didn't choose to be black, but how effective is that fact in regard to eliminating racism? ***** is not a choice, but does that mean that having sex with children is acceptable? The only relevance that choice has in the matter is that which applies to how long people are willing to stall the argument and create an unnecessary impediment to the kind of discourse which would open itself to effective change.
Tuah
It's totally irrelevant. Even if homosexuality were totally unnatural, that doesn't make it a bad thing.

I do think it's a combination of nature and nurture. Different for every person.


This is why I don't like these threads; we start talking about how "unnatural" something is. People are SO hypocritical when it comes to naturality. Let me just inform you with a few points.

1. You can find homosexuality in other animals and living things. Sexual orientation means very little to basically everything else. Certain species are asexual. Others are genderless. It is so dang hard to compare humans to animals, especially when it comes to gender and chromosomes. Everything reproduces just a little bit differently, and in fewer/greater numbers.
2. Nature by definition typically has an anti-human element. I could argue that nothing is natural about being human.
3. If natural means living more like animals, and less like humans, then we would find that we are doing a terrible job at being natural. We have too much technology and advancement to be considered natural at all. Why should we start caring only about sexual preferences?
4. The only reasonable use of "natural" when it comes to humans, is that everything is natural. Or rather, humans are naturally humans. There is no specific standard. Human nature is a hard thing to generalize, especially when it comes to sexuality. I doubt there is any way that homosexuality could possibly be unnatural.

Sure, it doesn't make babies. But is that really what makes it more or less natural? I don't think so. Not at all. Nature is just another topic that people misunderstand. For everyone's sake, don't talk about how natural or unnatural something is. Even if we did find something "unnatural", we as humans don't really care anyway. Why are we only caring about this?

Shadowy Rogue

3,700 Points
  • Battle: Rogue 100
  • Signature Look 250
  • Partygoer 500
Henry Hobo-Master
Tuah
It's totally irrelevant. Even if homosexuality were totally unnatural, that doesn't make it a bad thing.

I do think it's a combination of nature and nurture. Different for every person.


This is why I don't like these threads; we start talking about how "unnatural" something is. People are SO hypocritical when it comes to naturality. Let me just inform you with a few points.

1. You can find homosexuality in other animals and living things. Sexual orientation means very little to basically everything else. Certain species are asexual. Others are genderless. It is so dang hard to compare humans to animals, especially when it comes to gender and chromosomes. Everything reproduces just a little bit differently, and in fewer/greater numbers.
2. Nature by definition typically has an anti-human element. I could argue that nothing is natural about being human.
3. If natural means living more like animals, and less like humans, then we would find that we are doing a terrible job at being natural. We have too much technology and advancement to be considered natural at all. Why should we start caring only about sexual preferences?
4. The only reasonable use of "natural" when it comes to humans, is that everything is natural. Or rather, humans are naturally humans. There is no specific standard. Human nature is a hard thing to generalize, especially when it comes to sexuality. I doubt there is any way that homosexuality could possibly be unnatural.

Sure, it doesn't make babies. But is that really what makes it more or less natural? I don't think so. Not at all. Nature is just another topic that people misunderstand. For everyone's sake, don't talk about how natural or unnatural something is. Even if we did find something "unnatural", we as humans don't really care anyway. Why are we only caring about this?


Precisely. Cancer is natural yet it's a bad thing. Chemotherapy is unnatural, yet it saves lives. Naturalness is totally irrelevant.

Aged Lunatic

Project 429
Sexuality is a choice, cultural association isn't. The entire debate is one big stupid equivocation.


So how do I make myself sexually aroused by the opposite sex if its a choice?
Tuah
Henry Hobo-Master
Tuah
It's totally irrelevant. Even if homosexuality were totally unnatural, that doesn't make it a bad thing.

I do think it's a combination of nature and nurture. Different for every person.


This is why I don't like these threads; we start talking about how "unnatural" something is. People are SO hypocritical when it comes to naturality. Let me just inform you with a few points.

1. You can find homosexuality in other animals and living things. Sexual orientation means very little to basically everything else. Certain species are asexual. Others are genderless. It is so dang hard to compare humans to animals, especially when it comes to gender and chromosomes. Everything reproduces just a little bit differently, and in fewer/greater numbers.
2. Nature by definition typically has an anti-human element. I could argue that nothing is natural about being human.
3. If natural means living more like animals, and less like humans, then we would find that we are doing a terrible job at being natural. We have too much technology and advancement to be considered natural at all. Why should we start caring only about sexual preferences?
4. The only reasonable use of "natural" when it comes to humans, is that everything is natural. Or rather, humans are naturally humans. There is no specific standard. Human nature is a hard thing to generalize, especially when it comes to sexuality. I doubt there is any way that homosexuality could possibly be unnatural.

Sure, it doesn't make babies. But is that really what makes it more or less natural? I don't think so. Not at all. Nature is just another topic that people misunderstand. For everyone's sake, don't talk about how natural or unnatural something is. Even if we did find something "unnatural", we as humans don't really care anyway. Why are we only caring about this?


Precisely. Cancer is natural yet it's a bad thing. Chemotherapy is unnatural, yet it saves lives. Naturalness is totally irrelevant.

I wouldn't say that cancer is natural. It starts from a mutation, which people could say isn't natural. However, if you consider that evolution depends on mutations, then we could argue that every living thing is unnatural. It's all based on evolution and mutations.

Chemotherapy is very unnatural, and you actually expose your body to a lot of damage. Nonetheless, it's very very very irrelevant. I don't even think it's a variable for anything that has to do with behaviors. We simply cannot compare our behaviors to another animal/living thing, and expect to call it natural/unnatural.

Shameless Mystic

I don't really ascribe to any of these.

I believe whatever is automatic and unintentional about your initial sexuality is a very real thing. I follow the nurture ideology moreso than the nature one, but the mechanics in which it works are so unknowable and personalized that it's probably no one's fault that any of it happens.

Then there's the unpopular view I have that attracts a lot of hate. I think that choice is a factor. I don't think that therapy, generally, will help. If someone wants to be different, they can... but they have to want it. Your parents or anyone else trying to force something that didn't just come naturally to you isn't going to happen. You, personally, desiring something else is a different beast entirely. I don't think most people have the willpower to face their demons, even if they want to. That, too, is choice.

Eloquent Elocutionist

6,050 Points
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Elocutionist 200
Project 429
Sexuality is a choice, cultural association isn't. The entire debate is one big stupid equivocation.


Opposite.

Eloquent Elocutionist

6,050 Points
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Elocutionist 200
Aporeia
I don't think most people have the willpower to face their demons, even if they want to. That, too, is choice.


A choice which cannot be picked is not a choice at all.

Shameless Mystic

Yoshpet
Aporeia
I don't think most people have the willpower to face their demons, even if they want to. That, too, is choice.


A choice which cannot be picked is not a choice at all.
Think of it more like a choose your own adventure book. The choices you get at any given point are limited, but they're still there. You just need to reevaluate some things before any of it can start happening.

People want some sort of surgical removal of their sexuality that won't affect them as a person, but this is laziness. You need to change a lot of fundamental things about yourself as a person before you have the power to change this.
It's all a choice.

drenchlaka's Spouse

crying sorry
It's all a choice.


What age did you choose to be heterosexual?
Yoshpet
Project 429
Sexuality is a choice, cultural association isn't. The entire debate is one big stupid equivocation.


Opposite.


That's what I meant.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum