You're either straight, gay, or lying?

First of all, look at the following NYtimes article.

quote:

---

But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.

​

The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.

​

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

​

In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital arousal patterns in response to images of men and women. The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men.

---

I have some gay friends that consistently insist that bisexuality is just an unstable phase and that people would eventually grow out of it. I personally don't know.So, does bisexuality actually a stable, permanent phase or is it a transitional phase in life?Ahem *molbigirl* {cough cough}

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

You're asking me?

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Phat, do you have to comment on everything about everything?

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Regardless of whatever reason behind the arousal, the person is aroused. It's called human sexuality. This isn't sexuality, Phat. I am intensely emotionally attracted to some of my friends, but that doesn't mean I want to marry them. Yes, and this is called social stigma. I'm assuming you're referring to either the realization that the relationship might not work or the relationship might be illegal. But the fact remains that the person is physically aroused by another, and it's called human sexuality. Phat, you have a screwed up view of human sexuality, and you are expecting the rest of us to follow it? Not all of us see sexuality as some kind of sin against god, you know. No, it's not what society tells you. It's what you are. If you are sexually aroused everytime you see someone who belongs to a certain group, it's what you are physically attracted to. I get physically aroused when I'm around certain women. I don't get physically aroused around men at all. According to your logic, I'm really gay because I like to go out and have a good time with my male buddies.

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

Really? I had no idea it's Pride Month.

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

I'm not the only one here who thinks that you're a closet case that insists on staying in the closet.Another obvious clue you give us about your case is your continual persistance that sex (as well as any relationship with another human being) takes you away from god, which is a bad thing. Off the top of my head, I can think of three instances when you actually said that sex is bad because it brings you further from god. Seems pretty obvious to me that you are having a crisis between your personal feelings/urges and your religious beliefs. Is it possible that you've either consciously or subconsciously conjured up the sex taking you further from god thing as a mental defense against your sexual urges? This argument of yours is little better than the typical argument against homosexuality we get from fundies. You know, the one that says "if everyone is gay, the human race will be extinct, therefore noone should be gay at all."Noone here is saying a young person who suspects he's gay should automatically go to a gay bar and bend over. What we are saying is that he should just be natural about it and act upon the feeling when it clicks. Like the old saying, when it clicks, it clicks. You, on the other hand, has taken it upon yourself to wage some kind war against human sexuality. In your advice for that young man coming here asking for advice, you even managed to squeeze in your "sex takes you away from god" speech. Well, we encourage people not to suppress a part of themselves that is as important as the personality itself. Suppressing your sexual urges will result in it leaking out in some other form, like acts of violence. Take masturbation for example. I have yet to find a valid reason why it is bad. And yet, it's suppose to take you away from god and into the depth of hell.And just as a preemptive strike against your silly tactic of exaggerating your opponent's argument, I am not advocating people going out and act upon their desire whenever they please. I am not advocating rape and such. I beg to differ. Churches are nortorious for giving advice on matters they know absolutely nothing about. All they have that guide them is that book written by madmen thousands of years ago. No, but you've said similar things, like having sex takes you away from god and such. You're basically telling them that even though there's nothing wrong with buying the cookie, just remember that eating the cookie will result in blindness.I find it interesting that this line of thought matches exactly with the fundamentalist view point on free will. Supposedly, god gives us free will to either believe in him or not. The thing is if you use your free will and choose not to believe in him, you will suffer for an eternity in the lake of fire. If you're pointing a gun to someone's head and tell him to do something while telling him that he has free will not to do it, is it actually giving that person free will or not?

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

Don't you read your copy of The Homosexual Agenda? Page 12 line 8: We as gays must do whatever we can at all costs to ruin other people's marriages, especially Brennakimi's marriage.

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

Well, I'm just trying to get to the root cause of Phat's anti-sex agenda.Phat's posts remind me of the church's attempt to control people's sex lives in the old days. There were books telling people which sexual position was ok with god and which is sinful. For instance, if a woman was on top, they were both going to hell. There were also books about how to raise children. For instance, I can't remember off the top of my head, but there was one example I read during my college years that told women to avoid physical contact with their babies and infants. Women were also encouraged to tie their babies up really tight. All of these things to prevent the children from becoming spoiled and also bring them closer to god.My point is all of these books and all of these teachings were conjured up by priests, cardinals, and other men in power, you know, people who didn't know jack about the things they were talking about.Phat is trying to preach to people all these things about sex, love, monogamy, gaydom, etc., all of which he supposedly has not much experience in. But he is convinced that he is right about all of these though, that sex is sinful because it brings you away from god, that there is no such thing as casual sex and all sexual encounters have psychological affects on people for life, etc. I'm just wondering why he has such an obsession with other people's personal lives so much.But you're right, I've been letting myself carried away too much by this. From now on, Phat is neither gay nor straight. He's a mutant (reference to a mutant character in X-Men).

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

My view has pretty much stayed the same. It's your understanding of my view that is in question. So, let me repeat what I think.Whether sex results in extreme intimacy and mental patterning depends entirely on the person. I am one of those that when I am with someone there is nothing more important to me than that person. And here is a clue. When my wife first found me, I was still a virgin.HOWEVER, I also know people who would go from one person to another night to night. They can't seem to stop. They don't believe in double dipping. Once they have slept with someone, they don't want to see them ever again. I must admit that I don't understand much of their mentality regarding sex. But I do see them as living proof of the existence of casual sex. These same people keep telling me that I'm missing out on something that is really great. And I keep telling them they're missing out on the wonderful world of monogamy.I guess the conclusion in this is whatever floats your boat.I still maintain, however, that you're the mutant from x-men comics Phat.

Unlike most fundies I know, I actually kept true to my vow of abstinence before marriage. I just find it interesting that most fundies I know who took that ridiculous vow never kept it. One girl came to mind who was and still is a major anti gay marriage evangelical type. She was always breaching to people about sin and all that nonsense. One day I got the news from her that she was getting married. Immediately, I asked her "are you pregnant?" and she gave me a simple "yes".

It started out as religious. I guess after I stopped being so delusional I was already too used to staying a virgin.Again, whatever floats your boat is fine with me.

You homophobic bastard. You left out all the gay identified who only go after other gay identified.

This makes sense. In fact, because of our large brain and ability to reason, it becomes quite hard to distinguish between what parts of ourselves are hardwired and what parts are learned behavior.This is why bigoted arguments against homosexuality in regard to it being unnatural can only be countered by examples of homosexuality in lower animals. We see homosexuality in everything from birds to reptiles to mammals. And as such, it becomes increasingly harder for the bigots to make the argument that homosexuality is a learned behavior rather than hardwired.

Please, I don't need the image in my head.

Being an expert on homosexuality (thank you thank you), allow me.There are animals that are monogomous and there are animals that enjoy casual sex. We've found gay members in both cases. There are certain types of birds that are monogomous. Gay members of these birds form life-long bonds. Biologists have observed these gay animals adopt orphans and rear them as their own. In some instances, these gay couples have even chased away unsuspecting parents to steal their eggs and rear the hatchlings. So, we know that the maternal/paternal instincts are still there. I think we all remember the gay penguins that successfully hatched an egg given to them by the zoo and actually reared the hatchling.Then we have the animals who enjoy casual sex. One very good example is the gay rams. They cost unsuspecting farmers million of dollars simply because they wouldn't breed. Male oriented rams (rams that would only mate with other rams) just would not mate with the females even when they're in heat. Just imagine being the farmer that paid big bucks for the prized ram for his sheeps only to find out the damn ram would only mount other rams.Anyway, my cousin bought pure bred dog (don't remember what it is) with the intention of breeding him. He's been complaining with me that the dog wouldn't even look at a female dog in heat. All he seems to be interested in are other male dogs.Anyway, the point is people have made the argument that animals like dogs would hump just about anything. They totally ignore the fact that these 'gay animals' wouldn't even go near the females that are in heat.