Originally posted by dadudemon
I am not even kidding when I say that that is a good idea because you're questions are only intended to make her look like a fool. I could say other things but I don't want to offend.
Originally posted by King Kandy
How should I have phrased that question, if I was genuinely interested in the answer?
K. I'm done with this conversation. Pretend like you had "genuine" interest when your past actions have only been to make her look like a fool.
It was just an observation and it gets annoying when you and others do that. Find someone else to troll.
Originally posted by inimalist
so we can't discuss someone's contribution to a discussion board?how is it less insulting to try and protect Jackie like that than to ask her to elaborate on her point? she is a big girl, she understands the concept of discussion
K.
I can't really say what I want to say in response to this nor could I to KK because I don't want to be a jerk. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemonHaha, what?
I am not even kidding when I say that that is a good idea because you're questions are only intended to make her look like a fool. I could say other things but I don't want to offend.
So discussions should only be held between those 'smart enough' to avoid looking like fools, so said fools can avoid hurt feelings?
I don't really see how Kandy's question could be seen as intended to make her look foolish unless you assume that she's a fool for thinking whatever it is that she thinks about sexual diversity and the role of 'choice'. He just asked for elaboration.
Oh, the internet...
Originally posted by dadudemon
K. I'm done with this conversation. Pretend like you had "genuine" interest when your past actions have only been to make her look like a fool.It was just an observation and it gets annoying when you and others do that. Find someone else to troll.
If someone says something stupid, and will get their feelings hurt when they themselves demonstrate how stupid it is... they should no be posting. This is a discussion board for people interested in sharing and debating their opinions.
Originally posted by King Kandy
So your point is that, rather than the actual substance of discussion, we should focus on trying to read each other's minds and guess whether someone's post has "good intentions".If someone says something stupid, and will get their feelings hurt when they themselves demonstrate how stupid it is... they should no be posting. This is a discussion board for people interested in sharing and debating their opinions.
You've TOTALLY convinced me that you're not being an ass to ADarksideJedi and you're only interested in "genuine" conversation with her.
Originally posted by dadudemonBe a jerk. The grown folks can handle it. Here's how I do it..
K.I can't really say what I want to say in response to this nor could I to KK because I don't want to be a jerk. 😐
The guys who have been going on and on about whether BEING gay or lesbian isn't a choice sound quite sure of themselves but an ignorance is exposed. Obviously people don't choose what they find to be visually stimulating, duh they don't choose what scares them either. However BEING gay or lesbian would require you to DO something sexual. Darkside jedi is quite right that sexual acts that aren't forced are choices even if the act is as innocent as a kiss on the cheek. Rape or molestation is what it's called when choice is removed from a sexual act.
If any of the people who say it's not a choice are right then a man who gets married to a woman and never does anything sexual with a man, is gay if he finds men attractive.
There may be some psychotic person who has snapped and now has NO CHOICE but to rape his pet turtle or some exception like that but sane people CHOOSE to do whatever sexual ACTS that they do. People do choose their acts even if it's staring at somebody else.
Going by the logic that it's not a choice would imply that everybody's potentially bisexual because their uncontrollable preferences have at least one time imagined what gay sex looks like thus proving their repressed bisexuality. Who cares what they say or do because we can define them as gay without gay actions?
That's an example of true retardation, as a man can fantasize about killing people but until he kills/acts we would never call him a murderer. Actions are what defines people and actions are chosen.
Saying "I'm gay" is a choice. Doing anything sexual to someone else or welcoming them to do it to you is a choice. Even secretly masturbating to fantasies of gay sex is a choice.
Please do tell, how you would label a person as gay if that person has chosen to do NO gay acts? And if you guys who think choice is not a factor are serious do you think that those who are only excited by children should be encouraged to explore their unchosen sexual preferences? Fathers who suddenly become aware of their attractions to their daughters should be encouraged to pursue their newfound interest, as it is uncontrollable?
Get real, urges and preferences can all be ignored if one chooses to do so. When they can't a persons sanity can be called into question. I'm not saying that a person who is gay chose what they where attracted by, I'm saying that they chose the actions necessary to be identified as that. Cause if they didn't choose to do ANY gay actions....Isn't it stupid to say that they're gay? 😮💨
Edit: this thread isn't about the dumb question "can we choose our actions?" anyway. It's about whether "orientation" can be influenced.
Being gay requires no choice, you either are or you are not. Having intercourse with a person of your own sex, sure, that's a choice, as far as all actions are choices, it's not what we are talking about though.
And you don't need to know whether a person is gay for them to be. We are talking about attraction, because that's what the terms heterosexual and homosexual are about, they are not referring to behaviour, but to attraction.
Originally posted by Bardock42No it's either you do, or you do not do something gay. Your cut and dry approach abandons peoples power of choice. Being a vegetarian is a choice.....the act of eating meat proves that someone isn't. Thinking gay is relative and is not equal to being gay as that requires an act of some sort, even if it's as simple as professing that you're gay.
Being gay requires no choice, you either hare or you are not. Having intercourse with a person of your own sex, sure, that's a choice, as far as all actions are choices, it's not what we are talking about though.
If what you're saying is correct then you can point at a dead man who never said or did anything gay and state, " here lies a gay man".
Labeling others is common but it's wrong when there's no evidence to support your label. Being called gay requires no choice as many straight people know. This works both ways and gay people are called straight. The proof is in the pudding so actions which are determined by choices are necessary for defining certain things about people.
How do you get that someone who does NOTHING gay AT ALL is gay?
Originally posted by The MISTER
No it's either you do, or you do not do something gay. Your cut and dry approach abandons peoples power of choice. Being a vegetarian is a choice.....the act of eating meat proves that someone isn't. Thinking gay is relative and is not equal to being gay as that requires an act of some sort, even if it's as simple as professing that you're gay.If what you're saying is correct then you can point at a dead man who never said or did anything gay and state, " here lies a gay man".
Labeling others is common but it's wrong when there's no evidence to support your label. Being called gay requires no choice as many straight people know. This works both ways and gay people are called straight. The proof is in the pudding so actions which are determined by choices are necessary for defining certain things about people.
How do you get that someone who does NOTHING gay AT ALL is gay?
Maybe you couldn't say they were gay with certainty. But that doesn't mean they weren't. Really, it comes down to the fact that you have no valid reason to assume they were gay. But it's still possible they were.
Being gay isn't about actions. Actions DO help us determine who is gay and who isn't, but they themselves do not make someone gay or straight. Gay people hook up with women all the time to try and hide that their gay. The simple act of hooking up with them doesn't make them straight.
Originally posted by The MISTER
No it's either you do, or you do not do something gay. Your cut and dry approach abandons peoples power of choice. Being a vegetarian is a choice.....the act of eating meat proves that someone isn't. Thinking gay is relative and is not equal to being gay as that requires an act of some sort, even if it's as simple as professing that you're gay.If what you're saying is correct then you can point at a dead man who never said or did anything gay and state, " here lies a gay man".
Labeling others is common but it's wrong when there's no evidence to support your label. Being called gay requires no choice as many straight people know. This works both ways and gay people are called straight. The proof is in the pudding so actions which are determined by choices are necessary for defining certain things about people.
How do you get that someone who does NOTHING gay AT ALL is gay?
You'll have to take that up with the definition of the words.
Vegetarian = someone that doesn't eat meat
Homosexual = someone solely sexually attracted to someone of their own sex
So you are comparing apples to oranges. One is defined by the actions, the other by passive traits.
Perhaps this clarifies it for you:
Natural Brunette = A person naturally having brown hair
It's not an action or a choice, but something that's an accurate description of an occurance in reality. Perfectly cromulent word, like homosexual, even though it does not involve any choice.
And you may claim that's unfair and that you shouldn't be labelled, but there's certain facts about a person that are the way they are whether you like it or not, whether you hide it or not. Like natural hair and eye color, skin colour, height, gender and, yes, sexual preference likely too.
Originally posted by Bardock42The things that you're using as examples can be determined at birth.....all except for a preference. You cannot choose skin color but you can choose who you have sex with or kiss. Preferences are subject to change, so labels that explain a persons preference must be CHOSEN by that person. Not by you or I. Choices made by an individual are absolutely necessary to determine their sexual identity.
You'll have to take that up with the definition of the words.Vegetarian = someone that doesn't eat meat
Homosexual = someone solely sexually attracted to someone of their own sexSo you are comparing apples to oranges. One is defined by the actions, the other by passive traits.
Perhaps this clarifies it for you:
Natural Brunette = A person naturally having brown hair
It's not an action or a choice, but something that's an accurate description of an occurance in reality. Perfectly cromulent word, like homosexual, even though it does not involve any choice.
And you may claim that's unfair and that you shouldn't be labelled, but there's certain facts about a person that are the way they are whether you like it or not, whether you hide it or not. Like natural hair and eye color, skin colour, height, gender and, yes, sexual preference likely too.
Going by what you're telling me we can identify gay people who have chosen to say that they're straight and lead straight lives, because we SAY that the choice is not theirs. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.
I may love the aroma of a steak and it may trigger me to salivate with desire, however if I CHOOSE to refuse it and all other meats I am not a closet omnivore. I have chosen to be a vegetarian and ignore my natural inclinations.
Darkside jedi is right about people having a choice about what THEY are going to DO.
Edit: Vegetarian: someone who WILL only eat vegetables.
Homosexual: someone who WILL only have a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex.
Will is a factor that cannot be removed from sane humans and their pursuits of their interests. If it didn't a homosexual would be defined as someone who literally CAN'T have a sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex. We know that is not the proper definition. The real definition should be : Someone who defines themselves as only being interested in sexual relationships with the same gender, through statement or actions.
Originally posted by The MISTER
The things that you're using as examples can be determined at birth.....all except for a preference. You cannot choose skin color but you can choose who you have sex with or kiss. Preferences are subject to change, so labels that explain a persons preference must be CHOSEN by that person. Not by you or I. Choices made by an individual are absolutely necessary to determine their sexual identity.Going by what you're telling me we can identify gay people who have chosen to say that they're straight and lead straight lives, because we SAY that the choice is not theirs. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.
I may love the aroma of a steak and it may trigger me to salivate with desire, however if I CHOOSE to refuse it and all other meats I am not a closet omnivore. I have chosen to be a vegetarian and ignore my natural inclinations.
Darkside jedi is right about people having a choice about what THEY are going to DO.
Again, that's just incorrect. You can't choose what you like. I couldn't choose to be a theist now, I don't believe in God/gods, perhaps one day that will change, but it is not a conscious choice, nor can it be. The same goes for taste, you can pretend you don't like something, you may even delude yourself, but ultimately you either do or don't, it's not up to you in any meaningful way.
We can't identify them either, just as we couldn't identify someone that regularly bleaches their hair as naturally brunette, that has nothing to do with anything. I could be a huge Coldplay fan and choose to hide it from you and you may never be any wiser as to it, but that doesn't mean I don't like them...you just don't know.
And you are right, I can't decide for someone whether they are gay or not, but neither can they.
[edit] your omnivore [sic] example makes the same mistake again, vegetarian is a word defined by the actions of the person described by it, homosexual is not.
Originally posted by Bardock42You can't choose what you like all the time but what it's not as far out of your control as you make it seem. I like sex. I think lots of women are sexually desirable. I choose to ignore them as potential sex partners and thus cannot be defined as a cheater. I have chosen my wife as my only sexual option. It will stay in my power to cheat or not, to lust or not. I create my options as to what I REALLY want. My actions will tell you what options I've created.
Again, that's just incorrect. You can't choose what you like. I couldn't choose to be a theist now, I don't believe in God/gods, perhaps one day that will change, but it is not a conscious choice, nor can it be. The same goes for taste, you can pretend you don't like something, you may even delude yourself, but ultimately you either do or don't, it's not up to you in any meaningful way.We can't identify them either, just as we couldn't identify someone that regularly bleaches their hair as naturally brunette, that has nothing to do with anything. I could be a huge Coldplay fan and choose to hide it from you and you may never be any wiser as to it, but that doesn't mean I don't like them...you just don't know.
And you are right, I can't decide for someone whether they are gay or not, but neither can they.
[edit] your omnivore [sic] example makes the same mistake again, vegetarian is a word defined by the actions of the person described by it, homosexual is not.
A man who refuses to include men in his options for a sexual partner or in his fantasies about sex ISN'T gay, and his actions tell you about the options he's created for himself. I know that some people are secretly gay and keeping it a secret is their choice. Myself I choose to keep the details of our sex life a secret from my wife's brother and mother. The act of choosing her as an option at all though was not out of my control as you are implying. Choice and sexual identity are tied to each other.
Okay, I tried to explain this three times now to you. You are comparing words which refer to actions by a person (like "cheater" and "vegetarian" or "golfer"😉 to words that refer to attributes of a person (like "homosexual" or "atheist" or "music lover"😉.
That is your mistake, I don't see a reason to continue this as we are just going over and over with you repeating that misunderstanding.