14 Aug 2007, 4:51 pm
Sopho wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Your entire post is logical and makes perfect sense. I'll call it a theory of mine that everyone is soft-wired, since you claim to be hard-wired. We agree that most people likely have the capacity to go either way, so I'll stop at "most".
That's not to say that I think most people can make themselves switch orientations. Some people claim they can, so I will accept that they think that. I don't know how other people feel. My guess is that some people can, but they'd be closer to bisexual than gay or straight (ie. 80% rather than 99%). By saying everyone is probably not 100% one or the other, I mean that extreme circumstances can change this, such as being in prison. But I can't think of many situations where someone will be away from ANYONE of their preferred sex for a long period of time. That's probably why you hear so much about gays in the military, prison, and some religious institutions. In everyday life though, I doubt that many people really can switch.
About switching, I don't think so, one person can possibly "switch" to other orientation apparently, but I think it would be to bisexuality or pansexuality only, but never from straight to gay or from gay to straight, at least I see it that way. Once you are straight you will never stop being attracted to women even if you "learn" or "switch" an attraction for other men, that would be the same with gay people.
I agree. I think if anyone can turn straight -> gay or the other way round, they were never gay/straight to begin with, they were bi/pansexual. But I don't know this 100%, I just doubt it very much that someone could do that.
Maybe it just means there never were "gay" and "straight" as strict concepts.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
14 Aug 2007, 4:53 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Maybe it just means there never were "gay" and "straight" as strict concepts.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Whether you use the terms 'gay' and 'straight' or not, my point is that I highly doubt many, if any, people can genuinely change their sexual orientation that drastically.
14 Aug 2007, 4:56 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
She's still gay though. What point are you making?
I'm showing the insignificance of gayness as you defined it.
What point are you making about the significance of it? She's attracted to women. So she's gay. And?
So she may be able to function effectively in a marriage to a somewhat feminine man. After all, it's not just about the sex, right? I'm sure there are men are have roughly just as feminine personalities as most women do.
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Of course being gay is independent of behaviour. That's what everyone else has been trying to tell YOU.
Well then, why advocate a certain behavior be legalized on the grounds that you're gay? Hmm? You just said it's independent of behavior. THAT's my point.
The behaviour is already legalised, idiot. It's no longer illegal to have gay sex.
I'm not talking about gay sex, smart person. I'm talking about gay marriage.
Sopho wrote:
I'm arguing gay marriage should then be legalised because there's no decent reason not to. If I'm only attracted to women, but can only marry a man, that means I either marry someone I don't want to be with, or I can't marry at all. Does that not seem wrong to you at all? Can you really not get it through your brain that that might piss a few people off? 
1. You don't want to get married.
2. Even if you did, you can get a civil partnership, which is the same thing except in name, so what's this "can't" nonsense?
14 Aug 2007, 5:01 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Maybe it just means there never were "gay" and "straight" as strict concepts.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Whether you use the terms 'gay' and 'straight' or not, my point is that I highly doubt many, if any, people can genuinely change their sexual orientation that drastically.
As cal intimated, it depends on the strength of measures one uses. Simply sitting quietly and mentally focusing probably wouldn't work for everyone, but same goes for people who need to take behavioural meds. There may come in future a "straight-izing" medication that can be prescribed when asked for. Those who wish to take it can. The point is they would have such an option available to them.
Some, but not all, Aspies want a cure. Same thing. Some people like having AS (like me), but for some people it's ONLY a great burden.
14 Aug 2007, 5:06 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
She's still gay though. What point are you making?
I'm showing the insignificance of gayness as you defined it.
What point are you making about the significance of it? She's attracted to women. So she's gay. And?
So she may be able to function effectively in a marriage to a somewhat feminine man. After all, it's not just about the sex, right? I'm sure there are men are have roughly just as feminine personalities as most women do.
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Of course being gay is independent of behaviour. That's what everyone else has been trying to tell YOU.
Well then, why advocate a certain behavior be legalized on the grounds that you're gay? Hmm? You just said it's independent of behavior. THAT's my point.
The behaviour is already legalised, idiot. It's no longer illegal to have gay sex.
I'm not talking about gay sex, smart person. I'm talking about gay marriage.
Sopho wrote:
I'm arguing gay marriage should then be legalised because there's no decent reason not to. If I'm only attracted to women, but can only marry a man, that means I either marry someone I don't want to be with, or I can't marry at all. Does that not seem wrong to you at all? Can you really not get it through your brain that that might piss a few people off?
1. You don't want to get married.
2. Even if you did, you can get a civil partnership, which is the same thing except in name, so what's this "can't" nonsense?
1. I don't think you get it. It's not ONLY about sex, no. But physical attraction comes into it as well. I like women. That doesn't mean I would be OK with a feminine man though.
2. Why can't gay marriage be legalised then?
3. Again, I'm not talking about ME. I'm using me as an example, but I mean anyone. Not just in the UK. So what if I don't want to get married? Lots of people don't bother voting in elections, would that make it OK to disenfranchise them? And I've even said, I might get married one day. But still, that's irrelevant. I want the right to get married.
14 Aug 2007, 5:10 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Maybe it just means there never were "gay" and "straight" as strict concepts.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Whether you use the terms 'gay' and 'straight' or not, my point is that I highly doubt many, if any, people can genuinely change their sexual orientation that drastically.
As cal intimated, it depends on the strength of measures one uses. Simply sitting quietly and mentally focusing probably wouldn't work for everyone, but same goes for people who need to take behavioural meds. There may come in future a "straight-izing" medication that can be prescribed when asked for. Those who wish to take it can. The point is they would have such an option available to them.
Some, but not all, Aspies want a cure. Same thing. Some people like having AS (like me), but for some people it's ONLY a great burden.
Fair enough. If some gays wanna take straightising pills, then fine. Same should be offered to turn straights gay if they want as well though. And don't pretend it's 'medication' because they won't be being cured of anything. I never said people shouldn't have the option though. I said I doubt they could do it themselves.
14 Aug 2007, 5:25 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Maybe it just means there never were "gay" and "straight" as strict concepts.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Whether you use the terms 'gay' and 'straight' or not, my point is that I highly doubt many, if any, people can genuinely change their sexual orientation that drastically.
As cal intimated, it depends on the strength of measures one uses. Simply sitting quietly and mentally focusing probably wouldn't work for everyone, but same goes for people who need to take behavioural meds. There may come in future a "straight-izing" medication that can be prescribed when asked for. Those who wish to take it can. The point is they would have such an option available to them.
Some, but not all, Aspies want a cure. Same thing. Some people like having AS (like me), but for some people it's ONLY a great burden.
Fair enough. If some gays wanna take straightising pills, then fine. Same should be offered to turn straights gay if they want as well though. And don't pretend it's 'medication' because they won't be being cured of anything. I never said people shouldn't have the option though. I said I doubt they could do it themselves.
Wouldn't be a good idea to make a straightising "medication", as it would seem to be viewed as a desease, so it would be an insult for them, so there won't be any acceptance at all by the gay&lesbian communities, even if this is offered as a choice to anyone who wants to.
As you said there should be also a pill to make straight people gay, for anyone who wants to, to be fair.
How churches will take this?
I suppose taking that "medication" would be a requirement if a gay person wants to congregate, otherwise that person will be rejected, so this doesn't seem to really solve these kind of problems.
14 Aug 2007, 5:32 pm
greenblue wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Maybe it just means there never were "gay" and "straight" as strict concepts.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Whether you use the terms 'gay' and 'straight' or not, my point is that I highly doubt many, if any, people can genuinely change their sexual orientation that drastically.
As cal intimated, it depends on the strength of measures one uses. Simply sitting quietly and mentally focusing probably wouldn't work for everyone, but same goes for people who need to take behavioural meds. There may come in future a "straight-izing" medication that can be prescribed when asked for. Those who wish to take it can. The point is they would have such an option available to them.
Some, but not all, Aspies want a cure. Same thing. Some people like having AS (like me), but for some people it's ONLY a great burden.
Fair enough. If some gays wanna take straightising pills, then fine. Same should be offered to turn straights gay if they want as well though. And don't pretend it's 'medication' because they won't be being cured of anything. I never said people shouldn't have the option though. I said I doubt they could do it themselves.
Wouldn't be a good idea to make a straightising "medication", as it would seem to be viewed as a desease, so it would be an insult for them, so there won't be any acceptance at all by the gay&lesbian communities, even if this is offered as a choice to anyone who wants to.
As you said there should be also a pill to make straight people gay, for anyone who wants to, to be fair.
How churches will take this?
I suppose taking that "medication" would be a requirement if a gay person wants to congregate, otherwise that person will be rejected, so this doesn't seem to really solve these kind of problems.
Yeah, it would be a bad thing if this does happen. But it would also have to be given to people if they really did want it. Most churches would probably make it a requirement, yeah. Although churches aren't that important, I know there are a lot of gay people who are religious but most appear to be agnostic or atheist. Ragtime is missing the point AGAIN. lol
14 Aug 2007, 5:48 pm
greenblue wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Maybe it just means there never were "gay" and "straight" as strict concepts.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Maybe the whole classification system needs to be re-evaluated.
Whether you use the terms 'gay' and 'straight' or not, my point is that I highly doubt many, if any, people can genuinely change their sexual orientation that drastically.
As cal intimated, it depends on the strength of measures one uses. Simply sitting quietly and mentally focusing probably wouldn't work for everyone, but same goes for people who need to take behavioural meds. There may come in future a "straight-izing" medication that can be prescribed when asked for. Those who wish to take it can. The point is they would have such an option available to them.
Some, but not all, Aspies want a cure. Same thing. Some people like having AS (like me), but for some people it's ONLY a great burden.
Fair enough. If some gays wanna take straightising pills, then fine. Same should be offered to turn straights gay if they want as well though. And don't pretend it's 'medication' because they won't be being cured of anything. I never said people shouldn't have the option though. I said I doubt they could do it themselves.
Wouldn't be a good idea to make a straightising "medication", as it would seem to be viewed as a desease, so it would be an insult for them, so there won't be any acceptance at all by the gay&lesbian communities, even if this is offered as a choice to anyone who wants to.
As you said there should be also a pill to make straight people gay, for anyone who wants to, to be fair.
How churches will take this?
I suppose taking that "medication" would be a requirement if a gay person wants to congregate, otherwise that person will be rejected, so this doesn't seem to really solve these kind of problems.
So you're for giving people no choice?
14 Aug 2007, 5:55 pm
14 Aug 2007, 5:56 pm
14 Aug 2007, 6:00 pm
14 Aug 2007, 6:03 pm
14 Aug 2007, 6:05 pm
14 Aug 2007, 6:07 pm
14 Aug 2007, 6:09 pm
