Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)

If I am unable to choose to be gay then that means that nobody is able to?What about heteros that spend too much time in jail and then turn gay?Or do you think that ones sexuality is unchangeable?

Oh, I didn't realize you were just trying to make us seem a bit silly. I thought you were saying that you can't choose to be gay.

I'm not so sure about that, but honestly, I've never tried.I think you might be able to be forced into it. Or at least forced into it not being so bad, and then gradually learn to like it, but is that really being gay, I dunno. I had a friend that started hanging out with a new crowd, and then started saying they were gay and then when they stopped hanging out with those people all of the sudden they were straight again. I guess they weren't really gay, but they were really gay, if you know what I mean.Also, there's no way, to my knowledge, to test whether someone really is gay or not. Does it always come down to what you are willing to fuck? It could be easy to fake it so certainly people could be choosing to 'act' gay. Of course you could say thay they're Not A True Gay-men.All in all, I don't think you can say that someone can't choose to be gay.

My point was that sexual preference might not be as immutable as you seem to be suggesting. O rly?

quote:

---

Dan writes:

​

Hoot Mon writes:

​

I'm pretty sure blacks are black by nature, and not by choice. I don't know yet if the same thing is true about gays.

You know, as always, there's a really easy way to test whether or not this is the case.
1) Go to the m4m section of your local craigslist. (Or w4w, if you are female.) Post an ad looking for NSA sex.
2) Meet up with the most attractive person who responds. Perform oral sex on them.
3) While doing so, choose to be aroused by the experience.
4) Come back here, and tell us how incredibly easy it was to choose to be gay.

​

Dan writes:

​

Hoot Mon writes:

​

Sorry. Not going there.

Why not?
If one can choose to be gay, you'll love it, no matter what your feelings on the subject are right now.

---

While it isn't explicit, it certainly looks like you are claiming that people are unable to choose to be gay.

How are you so sure about that?

No, it doesn't. Even if the sexual preference was painfully forced, it would still be mutable. Well, you've backed up from your original position now so I'll rest my case.I do agree that a blanket statement like "Homosexuality is a choice." is stupid and I don't believe that it is, however I do think that it is capable of being a choice (which you seemed to desagree with).

Oh, I agree. I think my sexuality is immutable but I have known some people that made me think that their sexuality was mutable. But, as has been pointed out, we can't really tell if it was actually their sexuality or if they were faking it or were tricked into it. My issue with gay marriage doesn't really have much to do with sexuality per se, the issue is that sexuality, which is something we can't know of a person, is going to be used in a basis for legal agreements.In sorta the same way, if they said that gay people couldn't be in the army and then had a draft, I could just say that I was gay to avoid the draft. Since nobody can really know my sexuality, I think that makes it a bad basis for determining who can be drafted or not.

I wish you put as much effort into actually understanding what I’m saying as you do into just trying to be a smartass. That sounds like something that someone might say after being in an arranged marriage, in which the sex could be described as rape if we were so inclined.So change your ”are constantly saying’ to ”have said’ and you have a point that I could agree with. But it would still be far from the point that I originally was making: that sexuality is not immutable. Heterosexual marriage used to be redundant. Marriage, and the laws around it, ”grew-up’ being heterosexual. To simply insert homosexual marriage in there too is throwing a curveball that the laws are not prepared for. But, it is wrong to deny them rights, so we have to do something. I certainly don’t care who’s fucking who. Typical liberal response: if you don’t agree with the way that I think then you are [insert derogatory term]. Same old shit for real.Bigot: (noun) A person who has defeated a liberal in an argument

While incredibly hilarious, that doesn't even come close to a response to what I was saying. Oh well. In not so many words that IS what your post said. What else did you mean by this line in Message 75:

quote:

---

If one can choose to be gay, you'll love it, no matter what your feelings on the subject are right now.

---

I looks like you are saying that if he is doesn't like the gay sex then one can NOT choose to be gay. If you say:

quote:

---

One cannot choose to be gay

---

How is that different than no one can choose to be gay?I realise that is different than saying: that human sexuality is completely immutable 100% of the time. But if you say that no one can choose to be gay and then argue against sexuality being mutable, whether you are or not, it looks like you are saying: that human sexuality is completely immutable 100% of the time. Sorry I misunderstood you but your posts are littered with sarcasm, so it ain't hard to. Oh, I'm not saying it would be hard to insert homosexual into marriage, thats the easy part. I was talking about the ramifications, which it seems like you think there are no negetive ones. Wrong, thats not the only difference. Also, not being able to confirm their sexuality is just a minor point, not really my reasoning for prefering a different name for the agreement. But then. you haven't really been addressing anything I actually been saying, its all a big joke to you. But you are really funny.You're really good at spinning what people say to make it easier to mock them. Have you found a way to use those skills for your own, perhaps monetary, benefit in real life? You could be a writer or something. Calling an idea bigoted because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it is. Let's have it... I could prolly use it for other stuff too.

That's what I disagree with. (heh, especially if his desire is to not be gay)My, or his, trouble choosing to be homosexual doesn't mean that other poeple will also have a problem making the choice, especially when I've seen people do it, althoug that in itself is debatable. Because you continued to support the position that sexuality is immutable.I've already gone over homo-marriage in other threads. At a quick glance it interested me enough that I will read it when I have time. Thank you.

Gays do have the right to get married. Its just that marriage in the US is between a man and a women. The 14th amendment is not being violated.In order for two men to get married, marriage would have to be changed to be between a person and a person. The 14th amendment doesn't give gays the right to change what marriage is.Why not create a type of legal agreement that marriage would be a subset of and then let gays enjoy the benefits of the newly created type of legal agreement? This wouldn't be seperate from marriage as marriage would be a part of it (marriage would be one type of the agrement), and it also wouldn't change what marriage is.

Thats different as race and sexual preference are different. Race is something concrete, something testable. Sexual preference is not. Gays are not a group of people like blacks are.I can't fake being black like I could fake being gay.

But marriage is not defined as being between two people of the same race. Thats why it got shot down, IIRC. It is, however, defined as between a husband and a wife. It is not the exact same argument. Try again. What law with regards to marriage are you talking about? The racial stuff doesn't even apply.You might as well replied with a Beck review.

Marriage is by definition for heteros, there's nothing to change. Homos were singled out, or not considered, when marriage was created. There would be no benefit to faking being straight as marriage is already for that, its the default, faking it addsnothing. Opening marriage up for gays is changing it to where faking would have a benefit, it is totally different.You're looking at it backwards.

Like how? Let's have it.