Who Here Chose To Be Heterosexual?

[musterion]

Which males here choose to engage in sexual intercourse with other males via the oral or anal orifices?

Just providing a more accurate title for what this thread is really about.

 

[Granite]

Which males here choose to engage in sexual intercourse with other males via the oral or anal orifices?

Just providing a more accurate title for what this thread is really about.

:chuckle:

Funny how you guys never seem to have a problem with lesbians.

 

[musterion]

We do. They're just as perverse but male homosexuals seem to have always been in the majority, and I'm not aware of any female homosexuals on TOL.

 

[oatmeal]

You're still constructing the exact same strawman 'argument'. I'm not denying that certain acts or behaviours are voluntary or that everything is beyond human control. I can choose all manner of things of my own volition and also whether to act on such but other things are simply beyond any such thing as conscious choice.

I've never chosen to fall in love.

I've never chosen to find peanut butter unpalatable.

By the same token I could not 'choose' to start finding my own gender intimately desirable as I can only find women attractive on such a level and any lusts I may or may not act upon could only involve the opposite sex. Are you trying to argue that I could 'choose' differently?

Why do you hesitate to answer my questions?

People make minute decisions all the time.

Should I continue looking at that attractive woman even though I am with my girlfriend or wife?

Oops, I accidentally took a pencil home from work? Accidental? or simply did not choose to pay attention to what you were doing?

I didn't mean to run my car into the other one, I was texting!

Fall in love?

Where does scripture speak of falling in love?

I work as a roofer. Falling off a roof is very exciting, it is the sudden stop at the end that is the problem. We take safety precautions to avoid falling.

Scriptures speak of walking in love, not running, not creeping, not falling, not groveling, not jogging, not sitting, but walking.

You have many options, falling in love is not recommended, it is dangerous. You should take precautions, the falling is exciting, but it is the sudden stop at the end that is the problem.

Walking is deliberate, it it slow enough to avoid most pitfalls, yet, you can still achieve goals and enjoy the journey

Ephesians 5:2

Truth is not a strawman

 

[Granite]

We do. They're just as perverse but male homosexuals seem to have always been in the majority, and I'm not aware of any female homosexuals on TOL.

Or there's less of an "ick" factor from some of you when it comes to gay women, which just demonstrates how completely ridiculous all of this is.

 

[resodko]

ick

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is likely your "No True Scotsman" argument is deeply rooted in homophobia.

Er, nope, sorry. I know you'd love for that to be the case but I neither have a fear or hatred of homosexuals, there's simply no reason to. Besides which aren't you the guy who thinks we can all 'train' ourselves to be attracted to inanimate objects?

:freak:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sexual perversion of any sort appears to be easy for people to fall into, which is why there are so many warnings against it in the Bible.
Since it is so easy for people to fall into sexual perversions, many people try to justify this defect in character by claiming it is natural.

The character flaw of homosexual perversion is just as natural as theft, rape, and murder.

Well of course it isn't. Being born with an inherent attraction isn't the same as committing an act.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Bible supports adolescent brides, like Mary the mother of Jesus, and shooting someone over property theft.
The Bible condemns homosexual perversions.

Looks like you hate what the Bible supports and love what the Bible condemns.

You know, you still have time to repent.

Ah yes, I recall you didn't seem to have a problem with Phil "Get em' when they're 15" Robertson...

lain:

 

[Granite]

Ah yes, I recall you didn't seem to have a problem with Phil "Get em' when they're 15" Robertson...

lain:

Uh, from what I remember, most Christians here didn't.

 

[Huckleberry]

Er, nope, sorry. I know you'd love for that to be the case but I neither have a fear or hatred of homosexuals, there's simply no reason to. Besides which aren't you the guy who thinks we can all 'train' ourselves to be attracted to inanimate objects?

:freak:

I'm sorry, but you're again showing that you just don't know what you're talking about. A single minute spend googling something like 'erotic plasticity' would have likely forestalled your throwing out a ":freak:" at the idea that one's sexuality is malleable, even to such a point as developing an attraction to inanimate objects.

I'm curious. And I'm serious asking you to examine this idea, but...are you afraid to actually do some research on human sexuality? Is your position on homosexuality so important to you that you're threatened by the possibility that the PC position on the issue is incorrect? Let me suggest, in all sincerity, that if you're going to take a position on the issue, even in as minor a public forum as this internet forum, that you should be more concerned that you're correct than politically correct.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If that is so, then how do you explain ancient Greece, where pederasty was the norm? Not to mention what we call homosexuality likewise being, if hardly the norm, then at least far, far more common and mainstream in ancient Greece than today? And what about the "gay for pay", otherwise heterosexual men who perform homosexual acts in pornographic films and whatnot? Do not all of things require sexual attractions that you would insist are not chosen and, indeed, beyond choice?

Where it comes to ancient Greece then it would be mere speculation on my part. Where it comes to pornography I did once see an interview with an apparent 'gay icon' who was straight - and didn't engage in any actual sexual acts on film. Without trying to be overly graphic he explained that any obvious state of arousal he was in was due to his thinking of his girlfriend and the rest was simulated. He didn't seem to have any reason to lie about it as any fan base he had would likely be disappointed to learn any of that - but apparently it's hardly unusual. What I would say is that if any man can actually be excited by another man it would be pretty pointless to identify as heterosexual.

That said, and for the record, I do not believe sexual orientation is typically "chosen". I believe perversity can have so profound an effect on one's sexuality that all sorts of attractions can develop and adhere, include homosexuality, but I think that's rather uncommon. For the vast majority one's orientation develops during puberty as a result of both biological and environmental factors. Mostly environmental.

I'm not convinced it occurs during actual puberty as I had attractions to girls before any of that set in. Biological development simply took that to the next step but I don't deny that environment can have a significant effect on the psyche.

But the fact remains that you're not showing much of an interest in the reality of homosexual orientation, but seem to be instead defending the rather ignorant, albeit conveniently politically correct, tripe.

Um, no, this has nothing to do with 'political correctness' and throwing soundbites like that about is hardly constructive or impressive either. What "reality" are you talking about?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm sorry, but you're again showing that you just don't know what you're talking about. A single minute spend googling something like 'erotic plasticity' would have likely forestalled your throwing out a ":freak:" at the idea that one's sexuality is malleable, even to such a point as developing an attraction to inanimate objects.

I'm curious. And I'm serious asking you to examine this idea, but...are you afraid to actually do some research on human sexuality? Is your position on homosexuality so important to you that you're threatened by the possibility that the PC position on the issue is incorrect? Let me suggest, in all sincerity, that if you're going to take a position on the issue, even in as minor a public forum as this internet forum, that you should be more concerned that you're correct than politically correct.

Uh, there's a difference between some people having an attraction to deck chairs and the idea that all people can "train" themselves to be attracted to the same...this kicked off a while ago where GO linked to an article where a woman married a ferris wheel - and then proceeded to link to two laughably inarticulate articles that promoted the idea that people could do as the above. If I can find the thread I'll link them here and you can make your own mind up. It ain't 'politically correct' to write that off as complete bunk frankly, nor am I denying that sexuality is completely immune from malleability either.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which males here choose to engage in sexual intercourse with other males via the oral or anal orifices?

Just providing a more accurate title for what this thread is really about.

Well, not only is yours a completely inaccurate title you've just unwittingly revealed the almost overriding fixation on men where it comes to homosexuality, so 'nicely done'.

 

[Huckleberry]

Where it comes to ancient Greece then it would be mere speculation on my part.

Considering that ancient Greek culture pretty consistently stands in stark contrast to just about everything modern day homo-supporters preach...let me again suggest that you look into this. I would think being comfortable with "mere speculation" on ancient Greek sexuality/culture does not allow you to claim objectivity, or even critical thinking, on this issue. In other words, shrugging this point off, as you do here, does grave damage to your credibility.

Where it comes to pornography I did once see an interview with an apparent 'gay icon' who was straight - and didn't engage in any actual sexual acts on film. Without trying to be overly graphic he explained that any obvious state of arousal he was in was due to his thinking of his girlfriend and the rest was simulated. He didn't seem to have any reason to lie about it as any fan base he had would likely be disappointed to learn any of that - but apparently it's hardly unusual.

So not even the homosexual act can illustrate homosexuality? I think at the very least you should acknowledge to yourself that this strikes something a blow to your standard for what is and isn't homosexual. Can you acknowledge that?

What I would say is that if any man can actually be excited by another man it would be pretty pointless to identify as heterosexual.

Consider that all reputable experts and organizations that deal with sexual identity consistently insist that sexuality must be self-identified. Why do you suppose that is? And why do you suppose you, here, reject that notion and insist we identify another person's sexuality by factors we cannot observe or measure? Does this cause you do doubt your understanding of this issue?

I'm not convinced it occurs during actual puberty as I had attractions to girls before any of that set in. Biological development simply took that to the next step but I don't deny that environment can have a significant effect on the psyche.

Sexual attraction? Because that's what we're talking about, if you remember. So did you have a sexual attraction to females prior to puberty? If not (and I'll assume not, as that'd be patently impossible) then you should consider that this non-sexual attraction you had to females prior to puberty might be one of those environmental factors that defined your sexuality during puberty? Doesn't that make sense?

Um, no, this has nothing to do with 'political correctness' and throwing soundbites like that about is hardly constructive or impressive either.

I think it does. Most all of what I hear you say on the subject draws straight from errant common understanding of human sexuality, most all of which is both wrong and, yes, politically correct. The reason it is both common and wrong is because it's politically correct. Put another way, you're accepting much about human sexuality that is just plain wrong, even illogical, because that's what others around you (be it peers, news media, scholastic instruction, whathaveyou) have taught you is acceptable to believe. If I can point out a handful of things that make it obvious what you assume about human sexuality is wrong, and you reject that and cling to your misconception instead, then I think I can quite reasonably characterize your beliefs as politically correct, as I can see no other reason for you to consciously adhere to what is false on an issue you obviously care about, at least enough to public argue it.

What "reality" are you talking about?

What human sexuality actually is and how it actually works. That would be reality.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why do you hesitate to answer my questions?

People make minute decisions all the time.

Should I continue looking at that attractive woman even though I am with my girlfriend or wife?

Oops, I accidentally took a pencil home from work? Accidental? or simply did not choose to pay attention to what you were doing?

I didn't mean to run my car into the other one, I was texting!

Did you make a conscious decision to find the woman attractive? No you didn't. You can make a decision to carry on looking sure but the attraction itself? That's kinda the point here...

Fall in love?

Where does scripture speak of falling in love?

I work as a roofer. Falling off a roof is very exciting, it is the sudden stop at the end that is the problem. We take safety precautions to avoid falling.

Scriptures speak of walking in love, not running, not creeping, not falling, not groveling, not jogging, not sitting, but walking.

You have many options, falling in love is not recommended, it is dangerous. You should take precautions, the falling is exciting, but it is the sudden stop at the end that is the problem.

Walking is deliberate, it it slow enough to avoid most pitfalls, yet, you can still achieve goals and enjoy the journey

Ephesians 5:2

Truth is not a strawman

Uh, it's a figure of speech dude and unless you think people have a direct say in who they develop deep romantic attachments to then it doesn't sound as though you've ever 'fallen' in love with anybody...

 

[Huckleberry]

Uh, there's a difference between some people having an attraction to deck chairs and the idea that all people can "train" themselves to be attracted to the same...this kicked off a while ago where GO linked to an article where a woman married a ferris wheel - and then proceeded to link to two laughably inarticulate articles that promoted the idea that people could do as the above. If I can find the thread I'll link them here and you can make your own mind up. It ain't 'politically correct' to write that off as complete bunk frankly, nor am I denying that sexuality is completely immune from malleability either.

Putting aside the argument from incredulity, can you acknowledge that it is possible to develop, by any means at all, a sexual attraction to an inanimate object? If you're not able to admit that, then will you acknowledge that it is possible to develop fetishes involving inanimate objects?

I think you should critically examine your position on this issue in light of the inanimate object/fetish question, and critically examine its effect on your position in regards to the development of sexual orientation. I submit that you're unwilling to accept sexual malleability extends to development of attractions to inanimate objects because that would threaten your position that sexual orientation is rigid. And that conceding that point would, in turn, threaten your position that one is born with a homo-/hetero- orientation rather than developing it during puberty. Which in turn would threaten to suggest the possibility that one's sexual orientation is malleable post-puberty, which would allow for the possibility of diminishing one's orientation and/or developing new ones.

 

[Granite]

Putting aside the argument from incredulity, can you acknowledge that it is possible to develop, by any means at all, a sexual attraction to an inanimate object? If you're not able to admit that, then will you acknowledge that it is possible to develop fetishes involving inanimate objects?

I think you should critically examine your position on this issue in light of the inanimate object/fetish question, and critically examine its effect on your position in regards to the development of sexual orientation. I submit that you're unwilling to accept sexual malleability extends to development of attractions to inanimate objects because that would threaten your position that sexual orientation is rigid. And that conceding that point would, in turn, threaten your position that one is born with a homo-/hetero- orientation rather than developing it during puberty. Which in turn would threaten to suggest the possibility that one's sexual orientation is malleable post-puberty, which would allow for the possibility of diminishing one's orientation and/or developing new ones.

What makes you convinced you're some kind of expert on human sexuality, thumper?

The lengths you guys go to demean an entire group are really remarkable.

Your argument seems to be: "If it's possible in theory to get worked up over a chair, anything follows."

 

[Arthur Brain]

Considering that ancient Greek culture pretty consistently stands in stark contrast to just about everything modern day homo-supporters preach...let me again suggest that you look into this. I would think being comfortable with "mere speculation" on ancient Greek sexuality/culture does not allow you to claim objectivity, or even critical thinking, on this issue. In other words, shrugging this point off, as you do here, does grave damage to your credibility.

I say it's speculation as with any ancient culture to an extent that's all any of us can give, IMO anyway. Now if it was the norm then it hardly requires a great leap of the imagination to figure that environment would play a significant factor where it would come to homosexuality. I don't claim that sexuality isn't malleable, certainly in regards to the impressionability of youth and living in a society where such is commonplace would have an effect on the psyche. Disagree?

So not even the homosexual act can illustrate homosexuality? I think at the very least you should acknowledge to yourself that this strikes something a blow to your standard for what is and isn't homosexual. Can you do that?

The example I gave was regarding a straight man where homosexual acts are simulated and not actually performed. You're arguing a point I've not even made here.

Consider that all reputable experts and organizations that deal with sexual identity consistently insist that sexuality must be self-identified. Why do you suppose that is? And why do you suppose you, here, reject that notion and insist we identify another person's sexuality by factors we cannot observe or measure? Does this cause you do doubt your understanding of this issue?
Sexual attraction? Because that's what we're talking about, if you remember. So did you have a sexual attraction to females prior to puberty? If not (and I'll assume not, as that'd be patently impossible) then you should consider that this non-sexual attraction you had to females prior to puberty might be one of those environmental factors that defined your sexuality during puberty? Doesn't that make sense?

Um, I self identify as heterosexual so what exactly am I rejecting? No, obviously I didn't have a sexual attraction to females before puberty but I knew I saw girls a lot differently than I did boys even if at the time I may not have fully understood why.

I think it does. Most all of what I hear you say on the subject draws straight from errant common understanding of human sexuality, most all of which is both wrong and, yes, politically correct. The reason it is both common and wrong is because it's politically correct. Put another way, you're accepting much about human sexuality that is just plain wrong, even illogical, because that's what others around you (be it peers, news media, scholastic instruction, whathaveyou) have taught you is acceptable to believe. If I can point out a handful of things that make it obvious what you assume about human sexuality is wrong, and you reject that and cling to your misconception instead, then I think I can quite reasonably characterize your beliefs as politically correct, as I can see no other reason for you to consciously adhere to what is false on an issue you obviously care about, at least enough to public argue it.

You keep talking about the reality of sexuality as if you have a monopoly on the understanding of it without actually saying anything about it. So far I see more sound bites from you than anything else and little to actually address. Accusations of 'political correctness' really mean nothing and even if someone disagrees or has a contrary position to you on the matter doesn't mean they're 'towing the line'.

What human sexuality actually is and how it actually works. That would be reality.

As above.

 

[resodko]

No, obviously I didn't have a sexual attraction to females before puberty ....

really? :freak:

i did

i was playing doctor and kissing girls in second grade