Once Gay, always Gay?

Your feelings dont control you. They ARE you. They are the same thing.

Are you saying you could choose to be attracted to men? If so, you appear to be in the minority. Did you look at my poll? Are all those straight people lying?

You are saying you have felt attraction to men before?

So what? If a gay man never acts on his feelings, he is not gay? LOL!

A gay virgin is still gay, even if he never has sexual contact with another person. It is not his ACTIONS that make him gay. The fact that he is attracted to men makes him gay.

That is only true if the actions are also against your principles.

 

You think being 'homosexual' is a "feeling"? Come on, I HOPE to God you aren't GOING THERE.

What percentage of people do you know of (statistically) who never act in their lives upon their sexual-orientation? I'm near-certain that SOMETHING about that in EVERY life is 'acted-upon'. If you go through life denying themselves sexual-expression; they likely are likely to be unhealthy in MANY ways.

That's just a STUPID, STUPID comparison!! So, you are comparing a person's sexual-orientation, to avoiding a violent act? Man... I literally DESPISE what you are saying here.

Honestly, THAT is a completely different thing, than 'sexual-orientation'. If your urges to be VIOLENT are as frequent and persistent as those which are related to one's sexual-orientation... then THAT is a stone-cold neurosis.

More possible mental-illness is being described there. Suicide, doesn't compare to 'sexual-orientation'. It is literally absurd to compare those things.

I swear... you make this stuff up and expect anyone who knows BETTER to BELIEVE you??!! Really, it's infuriating and SAD at the same time.

You need to learn what sexual-orientation is... and why asking/expecting a sexual person to refrain from being sexual for a lifetime... is just TOO MUCH. BTW, I feel compelled to REMIND you that sexual-urges (or attractions) are not equal to resisting VIOLENT compulsions. If you do not see/know the difference... then that is a MAJOR problem.

 

What are these RIDICULOUS comparisons you keep making?! Come on man... make some sense.

 

One's sexual-orientation is typically not known, until their early to late teens; some have claim to know sooner and others later.

THAT IS STUPID!! You aren't even close to the consensus of numerous and reputable experts on human sexuality. Look man, BELIEVE what you will/must... but don't expect anyone but yourself to BUY INTO what you are relegating to 'faith'.

People can choose to be celibate... how many actually DO? How many heterosexuals "choose" to have sex with others of the SAME SEX? Why would a homosexual person even want to have sex with a person of the OPPOSITE SEX? Your statement above, is the equivalent of saying there can be either moisture or dryness. (Of course.) A person who is not thirsty, can make a choice to drink or not. Yet, it is VERY unlikely that a thirsty person will choose to not drink.

Do you expect homosexuals to be SUPERHUMAN ALL OF THEIR LIVES?

And it is a "choice" for YOU to BELIEVE what you are saying. Science and MUCH reputable research refutes your 'belief'. If you don't know that... you don't WANT to know; you've made a "choice" to NOT know better.

You're incorrect. Most homosexual people KNOW that genetics is likely a factor, but that there is no definitive conclusion that genes alone determine sexual-orientation. There are likely MANY factors which cause a person to be heterosexual or homosexual.

Sorry, but there is EVIDENCE, which cause your "beliefs" to appear as being ABSURD. You are making claims that few who know better, would ever make.

Who says that "homosexual" sex is "wrong"? You might be saying that, but not everyone. Quit trying to IMPOSE your beliefs upon those who think/believe something else.

People have limited autonomy; SOME things about their lives CAN be affected... others are as good as being unchangeable FATE.

(see the above)

That is NOTHING like going from gay to straight. If you don't believe that, just talk to all those GAY people who have managed to become "Republicans"... but didn't have so much success with changing their sexual-orientation.

That is another STUPID thing to say.

 

Thanks! I forgot to say that very thing. Great point!

 

I agree that sight is part of sexual preference.

It does indeed mean that on the basis of personal preferences your DNA is "selective". Racism is a much broader concept than personal preference.

Your points do have some logic, although assuming personal preference is racism a Logical fallacy ("assuming a premise that you have not substantiated) .. mate selectivity extends to selecting out folks of your own race.

Selecting a mate indeed seems to have a genetic component. You do not "choose" to be pysically attracted to someone.. you either are or you are not.

It seems as though your logic has led you inadvertently to the right conclusion, that sexual preference is in our genes.

 

I just do not see the big deal, and I am as conservative as them come,,fiscally that is. The only thing that bothers me is the service, sure they should serve if they want to,,no problem there,,it's their right.
However as a straight male I would like the same privacy extended to the ladies from people that are attracted to you,that's all. Sounds fair to me, they should have their own barracks. This does not mean in any way I think they are inferior, not at all, it's a sexual preference thing,,,that's all.

 

I know what you mean.

Okay.

I can see your concern, but it is a fact that gay/lesbians have been in the same quarters and bathing facilities with one another since the U.S. has had a military.

And for the most part, men and women who are gay in the military aren't flamboyant or intrusive about their gayness; in fact, most are rather 'conservative' about their behavior overall (in my experience).

Not going to happen. Even at age 18 when I went into the military, I learned to control my urges in the showers and in close quarters with other men. If nothing else, wrap a towel around your "junk" and don't "stare" at others. It isn't impossible to manage.

Sexual-orientation, isn't about "preference"... we don't prefer (as if by some type of 'choice'); even so, a gay man/woman CAN learn to control their thoughts for such amount of time as it takes to have a shower and get dressed for work. At most, we didn't stand around talking in the showers... it was about 2-3 minutes MAX getting yourself clean/dry and about another 2-3 minutes getting that uniform on for work.

Right now, the troops KNOW that gay people are working with them and they know OPENLY that certain people are homosexual. I'm watching/monitoring for problems very attentively, and it is clear that people are getting along just fine. People are human beings, not lower animals.

 

If you were gay and had to hide anything that might 'indicate' your sexual-orientation, it meant quite a lot.

Yeah? Well equality and mutual respect have been improved quite a lot overall; I'm still serving and I can assure you that is true.

Exactly what do you mean? No one in the military is promised that they will always be 'comfortable'. I can understand someone feeling violated if they are either touched or perhaps 'stared' at... but if they have issues with homophobia, that is nothing new and they'll just have to deal with that themselves.

I can almost assure you, that the person with the problem will be reassigned. Even so, the generation which populates the military at this time, is far-more accepting of homosexuality than my generation ever will be.

You have to go with what has been most functional. Maybe 1000 years after we're dead... the military will have women/men using the same facilities. In any case, it will be about 'function', just as it is today.

As YOU imagine, that is what it is. Even so, I'm here to tell you that I'm STILL out here in the field, and that isn't an issue... certainly not a significant one. I can agree that maybe 30 years ago it would have been a serious problem, but it isn't today. I can tell you plainly, the Pentagon was right about repealing the ban.

It's about learning to adapt period, not catering to any 'individual' person's comfort. Again, as long as no one is propositioned or assaulted sexually... it works and has worked for a very long time. On the other hand, now a troop can talk about his/her weekend or have their computer room/computer-files inspected, and that single or minimal clue that they are 'homosexual' will not end their career. That is a GOOD thing, no matter how you want to slice it.

I think there are many things you haven't considered, where it concerns mixing genders. Even so, I can guarantee you that if one MAN tried to rape another... there would be a pretty good fight. As tough as some of the women are, the situation might not turn out so good.

But as I implied already, men/women housed together in a barracks environment, presents special considerations which we address even today... due to special situations. Still, BEHAVIOR and complying with regulations is key to success, based upon what I have witnessed over the last 30+ years of service.

Why are you in there? You can visit today, but you cannot spend the night and use their showers. As I said, in the far-off future that may change.

You are being ridiculous. No one has said that; I don't even know any heterosexual troops in my career who have made such a claim. This foolishness is something I can (fortunately) relegate to what you are saying here in this forum. Even so, maybe the question DID come up before Congress. It's possible that I missed that (I don't watch C-Span every hour of the day).

Actually "flounder", I think what you are talking about is ludicrous overall. And if you bring it up again, I'm already programed to ignore you for now. I see your point to a degree, and I somehow have the notion that it has been considered by people WAY ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. Maybe you should talk to them.

You are trying to force agreement to some stupid absolute that seems reasonable to you, but for whatever REAL reasons is not in the interest of the military nor the overwhelming majority of the American people. You can sit an think it over, but as a man who has been to war and served as long as I have... it is at best humorous to ponder.

Here is what you do: Start writing your politicians, and addressing your concerns, just as likely thousands of Americans did concerning DADT. As YOUR agenda progresses, I'm sure I'll hear about it on the internet, radio or TV. Good luck and best wishes.

 

I apologize for taking the topic a bit away from itself.

flounder, I think any views on DADT should be shared in a different thread.

 

Gays just cant fathom a bisexual choosing to identify as a homosexual or heterosexual. Screws up their whole world view.

 

You are wrong. I know more than a few people who decide to DO (and identify with) opposite gender, but still WANT the other gender. Some guys/gals are more or less bi-sexual. In most cases, it is scientifically determined that sexual-orientation does not change.

A person who is gay, straight or bi... CAN play any role they choose, if they decide to. With few exceptions, most cannot and do not alter their sexual-orientation (who/what they are attracted to).

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

How so ?

A bisexual prefers both.

How does this relate to preference being genetic ?

 

Made up BS you evidently need to get through your day.

 

It doesnt, it relates to how many people choose their "preference" or orientation.

 

If it does relate (as you imply), then what do you say would be the specific mechanics of how that 'preference' or 'orientation' is chosen?

I'm certain that many experts would be interested in hearing the theory you've adopted, to make such a statement.

 

A multitude of factors, as opposed to your simplistic view that each and every person is born with a specific sexual orientation.

http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/social_construction.html

 

Go back through the files (if you wish), and show where I have actually denied what you claim above.

As a matter of fact, I've quoted the APA numerous times and agree with their position on the matter. As a gay person who literally struggled with his sexual orientation (i.e. sought to change it)... I've listened to and read much literature covering many views. My approach to this may seem "simplistic" to you, but I can assure you that I've looked deeply into the topic.

I agree that I may not always communicate that in a fashion which reveals how much I really know; most people don't.

 

You both deny that a choice is ever made, and you deny that it can change over time.

 

Wrong. You are doing nothing but misrepresenting the meaning of what I've said.

Here is my overall position (from what I've experienced and witnessed, it is apparent to me that their research and position is correct)|source|:

If you or anyone else tells me something different, I can consider it... but will likely stick with what the APA has officially concluded (thus far). That is, you OPINIONS in this forum, cannot carry the weight of the APA in my view. I have my opinion also, but I'm not absolutely 'wrong' just because you might disagree.

We can disagree; that is fine. But do not expect to go unchallenged in certain ways.

 

Actually, I quoted what you said

 

Okay. I agree with what I said and meant... not necessarily what YOU interpreted from the same.

 

Your statement

my interpretation

What did you want to disagree with? Are you trying to simultaneously argue that it never changes, but there IS a choice?

Or is it like I suggested, you just want to disagree. You dont know what it is that you disagree with, but that never stopped you from disagreeing.

 

...meant what I intended it to mean. 'dixon's' interpretation of the same, led to confusion in his own mind.

Your opinion of what I said, not necessarily an acknowledgement of the MEANING of what I said.

No. You will never hear me say that certain things about people do not change. There is no way I believe that. Even so, if you found that 10 out of 100 homosexual (or heterosexual) people managed to 'switch' their sexual-orientations COMPLETELY... I'd be both surprised and amazed.

Actually, I like agreeing with people. But I know that much of what you communicate, is simply dehumanizing and bigoted BS. Sorry... can't agree with that.

You need to get your imagination in-check. I can see the meaning of the THOUSANDS of words you've posted. It is CLEAR that we disagree about a large number of things where homosexuality or human sexuality in-general are concerned. IF I find a point of agreement with you, it would be astonishingly refreshing.