On sexual ORIENTATIONS...

[Solon]

I emphasize orientation, because I think it is important. As far as the latest science in human biology has determined, though it may change in the future, sexual orientation is most likely determined by biology, not choice. The problem is that people are confusing sexual orientation with actions, and this is troubling. I thought we were smarter than this, but whatever. Homosexuals are people who have an attraction towards the same sex as they are, period. This, as far as anyone can tell, isn't a choice. For Heterosexuals, its the same thing, but with the opposite sex. Then we have bisexuals, and this is where things get blurry. Bisexuals are attracted to BOTH sexes, period.

This is where actions end up getting confused with orientation, if a bisexual man is with another man, is he "homosexual" for the time period he is in a relationship with that man? No, of course not, he's still a bisexual male, just one who is with another male. If that relationship fails, and later on that same man is in a relationship with a woman, is he now heterosexual? No, of course not, he's is still bisexual.

The tricky part is that bisexuality may be a continuum itself, not all bisexuals are attracted to both sexes equally, some may have a slight preference towards one or the other, but not wholly dismiss relationships with either sex. This doesn't mean they are homosexual or heterosexual.

Most people may actually be bisexual, with preferences for one sex or the other, whether they act on it is a choice, but they still wouldn't be choosing an orientation, they are still bisexual. In some cases, due to cultural pressures, they may suppress their feelings for the same sex, other times they do not. It doesn't change their orientation. Its certainly possible that both "pure" homosexuals and "pure" heterosexuals only consist of a small section of the population, and that most people are bisexual by nature. But, due to the fact that they are normally attracted to both sexes, due to nurture, they may develop preferences later on for one sex or the other.

There are also other issues such as gender identity that makes the issue even more complex, but then again, human sexuality has always been complicated, we just have to figure it out one step at a time.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

1. Irrelevant

Whether sexual orientation is biological like race or a choice like religion, discrimination is wrong.

[Solon]

2. What does that have to do with the price of cookies in Norway?

In case you were wondering, whether discrimination is wrong or not isn't the point of my OP. I was trying to dispel ignorance, nothing more, nothing less. Please avoid OT stuff from now on.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. It's Still Irrelevant

Some folks think GLBT are not entitled to discrimination protection because they CHOOSE to be gay. " I was just trying to dispel ignorance, nothing more nothing less. Please avoid stuff from now on." Nice. LOL.

[xchrom]

3. i just want to add -- gay men sometimes fool around with women --

they are still gay.

lesbians sometimes fool around with men -- they are still lesbian.

straight men -- sometimes fool around with other men -- they are still straight.

i know everyone wants black and white boundaries with alarms that go off that moment something wanders into a different context.

but it doesn't happen that way.

[Solon]

4. Yeah, there's that too...

Its more about feelings of attraction than actions in and of themselves. A bisexual woman in a relationship with another woman will still be attracted to men, that's probably more important than if she actually slept with men, at least as far as orientation is concerned.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. In what sense?

I have no problem with people not behaving in the way defined by a particular word, but I'm not sure you can apply the word to them if they don't.

[xchrom]

17. i'm saying that sexual boundaries can be fluid under the right

circumstances.

it doesn't change the orientation of the individual -- it's timing, it's drinking it's whatever -- but now there is a different experience.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. And straight folks sometimes feel attraction to other of the same sex

I've had strong feelings for other women, but never acted upon them sexually. Personally, I think it was easier in the past, at least, for women to have very strong friendships with other women without being ostracized the way gay men have been. And it is sad that people can't be free to just love openly who they want to the extent they want.

[ruggerson]

13. If you've had strong

sexual/erotic feelings for another woman, then you are not 100% straight, imho.

Conversely, if those feeling were just strong feelings of attachment or deep love, devoid of physical desire, then that does not figure into the sexuality equation to begin with. Straight people can feel deep love for members of their own sex and gay folks can feel deep love for members of the opposite gender.

[ruggerson]

8. Exactly. Take action out of the equation

and the religious rightwing argument explodes in their face.

If a gay man is celibate for the rest of his life - he is still a gay man.

If a bisexual woman has no sex from here on out - she is still attracted to both sexes.

Orientation is how one is WIRED biologically - and the reason that this is important, despite the people who say it doesn't matter - is because the religious rightwing tries to conflate biology with action. Their argument is that homosexuality is nothing more than an action - a sex act.

Frankly, I dispute anyone, gay or straight who claims that their innate sexuality is somehow a "choice." The only thing that is a choice is how you act on your innate sexuality.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. I Agree with You

That's is why I responded to the original poster with this: 'Whether sexual orientation is biological like race or a choice like religion, discrimination is wrong. "

S/He didn't get or understand how the question of whether or not it's biological/choice is irrelevant. The far right wants it to be relevant.

Discrimination is wrong either way.

[ruggerson]

10. I agree that discrimination is wrong

even if sexuality were a choice.

But, sexuality is not a choice. It's innate, like left handedness or one's eye color. So I don't agree with giving them any ground whatsoever on this point.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

11. Deflate the Issue

..........by telling them it's wrong either way.

I personally think it's biological, but ultimately, it doesn't matter.

If I choose to be gay, which I didn't, I certainly choose to be out and that is fabulous.

[ruggerson]

16. I don't believe in ceding them any ground

their argument is that "homosexuality" is somehow an evil, lifestyle choice.

Mine is that they're full of shit, that they are liars and that sexuality is biological.

They are the ones actually making the lifestyle choice - it's a choice to be an obstinate religious bigot and cling to superstition in defiance of scientific reality.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. I Choose to Be Fabulous

Who says the choice has to be an 'evil, lifestyle choice' rather than the 'fabulous, lifestyle choice' we make it.

I say it doesn't matter. Throw it back in their faces.

Born or a choice ........ either way, we should not be discriminated against because we choose be gay or go to a certain church anymore than if we were born black or gay.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. For the rw fundamentalist nutjobs, believing that your religion is the

only correct one and acting on it by trying to sell it to everyone else, is a choice, a bad one, but a choice nonetheless.

[democratsin08]

14. biology

"I emphasize orientation, because I think it is important. As far as the latest science in human biology has determined, though it may change in the future, sexual orientation is most likely determined by biology, not choice."

biology as in being born with male or female genitals? i agree, we have no choice in that.

[AtomicKitten]

15. Richardson framed his response by admitting ignorance on the subject.

That should make some sort of difference.

[goodgd_yall]

18. Gay gene finding isn't conclusive

Orientation may be something that can't be changed, but it isn't necessarily somehing we are born with. Just my theory, but it could be we are all born with the potential to be bisexual, but through society's bias for heterosexuality, most people are socialized and/or brainwashed through the family and our culture to prefer the opposite sex. And some of us have such a negative experience with a member of the opposite sex that heterosexuality just never can happen. Ok, I'm not a scientist, but scientist have not unlocked the secret to sexual preference so all reasonable theories are open for consideration.

Also, the studies on a potential gay gene only included men, as far as I know. Women have yet to be studied---(Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think this is so.)

Still, this is not to say there is a choice in it all, just that gay and lesbian people are not necessarily born that way either.

[Solon]

19. Well thanks for displaying your ignorance, at least you are honest about it...

There isn't a "gay gene", there may or may not be a series of genes that are active in homosexuals that aren't in heterosexuals, or visa versa. Don't rely on the M$M to report on any scientific findings accurately, go to the source, the M$M is sensationalist chicken scratches on paper, they write for ratings, for popularity, scientists don't care about that shit.

If you noticed, which apparently you didn't, I didn't mention a GENETIC basis for homosexuality, only a BIOLOGICAL basis. These are different, yet related, and includes things such as hormonal levels in the mother during gestation, things like that. Many things can influence future sexual orientation for fetuses, it could be environmental, population pressures through hormonal cues, etc.

The fact is that no baby is born as a "blank slate", there is something there that is influencing our orientation. Most people, for as far back as they remember, never remembered making a choice at all, when did you choose?

[goodgd_yall]

23. Hello, neither did I say you were saying it was genetic

But some of the posts here and that I've read other places do say that gay people are born that way.
If they are born that way, then there must be a genetic component. Yes, you said biological; I understood you.

Now, as far as MSM news, you have no idea what my news sources are. And let me tell you, I've lived on the coast of California where access to alternative news sources are abundant and that is where I get my news. As far as scientific studies, I go to academic internet sources.

I should have been more precise, this is true---genes, rather than gene, but there, I gave you an opportunity to attack me, so, it was good for you, wasn't it?

[rucky]

20. Just ask any GLBT if it's a choice.

you'll get 100% NO.

[goodgd_yall]

24. I'm a lesbian

and...I didn't say it was a choice, neither am I saying it's 100% "born that way." Let's not politicize science. Science has not convincingly shown that gayness is genetic. Furthermore, studies have been done on men, so whether it is genetic or not for women has not even been studied.

You ought to read more carefully before responding to a post. I know it is a passionate subject and I sometimes jump to responding to posts before I've read the original one carefully.

[ooga booga]

22. Don't forget asexuals....

With two genders and assuming that sexual attraction/activity is one-on-one, there are four possible permutations:

(1) Heterosexual - attraction to the opposite sex
(2) Homosexual - attraction to the same sex
(3) Bisexual - attraction to both sexes
(4) Asexual - attraction to neither sex

(Just think of the possibilities if there were THREE sexes!! Nine permutations!)


In my own biased and anecdotal view of sexuality, I don't recall CHOOSING an orientation. It just emerged in adolescence. I just assume that it simply emerges for other people as well -- not as a choice but as something that seemed to be "hardwired" into their personalities.

Sexuality is "designed" for reproduction, and, as such, heterosexuality may be the main "intent" of nature. However, I suspect that the other possibilities have been around as long as the two genders have been. So, in that sense, they're probably just as "natural" as heterosexuality.

As liberal as I'd like to think that I am, I admit to being a bit uneasy with homosexuality, but I see that as my hangup not theirs. As with the social issues of giving women the vote and recognizing the civil rights of black citizens, I think we are lurching slowly toward acceptance of sexuality other than heterosexuality. The conservatives are just playing their traditional role of bringing up the rear -- howling at the prospect of real social progress.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. The Pleasure Factor

You write: "Sexuality is "designed" for reproduction, and, as such, heterosexuality may be the main "intent" of nature."

Nonsense. Lots of 'quotations' around your observations. I feel sorry for you when you say that. Ever heard of pleasure? It's no wonder you ask us not to forget the asexuals.

You write: 'As liberal as I'd like to think that I am, I admit to being a bit uneasy with homosexuality, but I see that as my hangup not theirs."

It is and I appreciate your honesty.

[rucky]

25. You could have black hair, or brown, or light brown, flaming red hair

etc.

Genetics is rarely an either/or proposition. And with the issue of homosexuality, well, everybody's parents were at least a little bit heterosexual, yet it's still passed on and on and on.

[nealmhughes]

27. Personally, I could give a rat's ass about "factors," "genes," "upbringing" or any other type of

reduction. Homosexual acts exist. Some people are aroused primarily by same gender/sex (I don't even want to go there on the differences between external sexual characteristics, beard, hair growth on chest, etc. and gender as a social construction.). Some are at times. Some never have been, or so they claim.

Sexuality is a lot like aesthetics: it gets talked about a lot, but there is not a whit of tangibility in the concept.

Only things that can be witnessed, touched, smelt, or heard are tangible. Therefore, homosexual acts are tangible. The interior, however, can not be tangible.

Culture is fluid, never in stasis.

Tab A will fit into Slot B. The insertion therein or not or rubbing together of As and Bs is not my concern, unless I am asked to join.

One needs not to either kindle fire, use a lever or work metal to have a homosexual sexual experience, ergo, by definition, it is not unnatural.

It is a personal thing and no business of the public, as long as it does not involve underage persons, animals or force or coersion.

The government and churches, synagogues, and mosques need to get out of bedrooms, as there is a reason most have doors and blinds.

To discriminate against someone for an arbitrary characteristic such as sexual arousal or action is just stupid, a vestige of a desert tribal deity who needed the blood of rams to stave off another flood or fire.

The enlightened have cast off the veils of superstition.