In meaner, possibly saner, moments I think of such a thing as a societal contract, breach it and you no longer belong. The answer to the rock spider issue is to step on the rock.
HG[/quote]
But Rock Spiders don’t actually live under thems rocks… they likes cracks and slits and other places of warmth 
Terrifyingly small cracks and slits at that.
HG
But not everywhere… many countries do not have laws that make so and permit sex between teenagers and adults.
Look at some European countries, Canada and Japan. So the concensus is not shared equally between all governments.
Sorry, but how can you be “sexual” if you’re not having sex? Having murderous thoughts, even plotting a murder, does not make you a murderer until you’ve murdered. Listening to speeches and even registering to vote doesn’t make you a voter until you vote.
You’re not a homosexual until you’ve practiced homosexuality. You’re not a hetersexual until you’ve practiced heterosexuality. You cannot have a homosexual or hetersexual relationship with someone if you don’t have a sexual relationship with them, right?
I understand that there are two definitions here, one related to sex and one related to merely tendancy of attraction and sexual desire. Sexual thoughts towards the same sex are by definition “homosexual”, but then thoughts about killing someone are by definition “murderous” and thoughts about helping ones fellow man are by definition “philanthropic”. But none of these things make homosexual, a murderer, or a philanthropist until you do something about it.
Want to claim that this is something different? That you can’t think of homosexuality that way because you just “are”? Well, that’s what the whole discussion is about, now ain’t it?
Apply the same standard to sexual offenders. Just having pedophilial (or whatever the correct adjective would be here) thoughts doesn’t make you a child molester. It’s a decision. It’s giving into the thoughts you’ve been carrying around.
Which is why whether a person is abused or not, it doesn’t justify or even mitigate their own sexual assault on another. At least, not in my opinion.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]
Here’s a wildcard. Some “victims” actually gain pleasure from these experiences, which instils in their own mind the idea that they are not doing anything wrong. The issue is intelectual, not physical. A kid may feel physical pleasure in something society deems a major no no.
The succesful peds can have an incredible number of experiences with a very vast array of kids by merely advising the kid to keep this “our little secret.” Obviously this is not a violent or frightening event in most instances, as the kids would talk, in most cases, if they felt threatened. [/quote]
Keep in mind that abusers are often very good at guessing which children will not tell. Some children have a bad enough relationship with their parents that they couldn’t tell them. Others are so young that they don’t know what’s going on. It’s not because the event was not frightening.
Ah yes, but our man Dan has willed himself off other men. Where is your mental fortitude, pervert?
HG[/quote]
Er, I think you read a little too much into my post there. I suspect I’d have to will myself ONTO other men since I don’t seem to have the genetic encoding, the right environment, necessary experiences or whatever it is give me natural urges towards people of the same sex.
My first point was about defining “homosexual” in the first place. If the definition is based not on sexual relationships but on sexual attraction, what’s the cut off point? Is it the “one drop rule”, where if you’ve thought about it once then that’s what you are? Or is it something like 75% of your sexual thoughts make you straight or gay, while if it’s like 74/26 then you’re bi? And what if the percentage changes? Women who start off in heterosexual relationships, get tired of men, find a female lover, become bi, then just quit guys all together and become total lesbians?
My second point is about controlling our thoughts and emotions. You can have a deep attraction to someone and then cut it off if you really want to. And if you want to love someone you can make yourself love them. But again, you have to really want it. Most of the time we fail at something because we don’t really want it, or we want something else more, when it really comes down to it.
I’m not making any moral judgements. Unless you share the same philiosophical, moral, and spiritual perspective as I do, or you explain your own real beliefs to me very clearly, how can I judge your actions? My argument is purely about the scienctific facts and the political agendas that are being pushed, not about the morality.
The idea that a person’s sexual orientation is totally out of their control is very popular, but not something I believe in. But maybe tomorrow a study will find conclusive evidence of a specific gay gene that unequivocally shows that a person’s sexuality is hard-wired. But until that happens, I prefer to believe people control their own lives, even though they don’t get to choose the conditions that they face.
Who knows, maybe they’ll find a “child abuser” gene too that proves some people are just destined to want sex with minors and that it runs in the family. I could be wrong on both counts.
[quote]The word homosexual is both an adjective and a noun. The adjectival form literally means “same sex”, being a hybrid formed from the Greek prefix homo–, which means “same”, and the Latin root sex–, which means “sex” or “gender”. Its first known appearance in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet by the Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny, published anonymously.
The term homosexual can be used to describe individuals’ sexual orientation, sexual history, or self-identification. Many people reject the term “homosexual” as too clinical and dehumanizing as it the word only refers to one’s sexual behavior, and does not refer to non-sexual romantic feelings. As a result, the terms gay and lesbian are usually preferred when discussing a person of this sexual orientation, whose sexual history is predominated by this behavior, or who identifies as such. The first letters are frequently combined to create the acronym LGBT (which is also written as GLBT, in which B and T refer to bisexuals and transgender individuals). Some same-sex oriented people personally prefer the term “homosexual” rather than “gay”, as they may perceive the former as describing a sexual orientation and the latter as describing a cultural or socio-political group with which they do not identify.[/quote]
There’s a definition for you Daniel. I guess we are talking about apples and oranges.
When you’re interested in discussing the same thing, let me know. Also, when you’re interested in being honest about your political agenda as it relates to this topic, I may be persuaded to debate with you further. You consistently misrepresent what I have asserted, and then falsely talk about having no agenda other than to promote the scientifically valid, blah blah blah. . . . 
Bodo
[quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation]Biology and sexual orientation is the proposition that there may be, at least in part, a biological basis for sexual orientation. An increasing number of studies have investigated this link, but no scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors that may play a role, nor to the precise nature of their influence on sexual orientation. Causal areas these studies have examined include morphological brain structure, prenatal environment, chromosomes, and viral genetic influence. Methodologically, some studies have used twins as controls.
The main biological determinants of sexual orientation are generally thought to be genetic and hormonal, with some writers suggesting either one or the other are the key factor, and many suggesting that both play a role. Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single “gay gene” that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of a number of biological factors. Many also agree that social and environmental factors intersect with biology to produce sexual orientation, while many strongly believe that sexual orientation is purely biological and inborn. The view that post-natal environmental influence is the sole determinant of sexual orientation and gender is increasingly rare among researchers, as the Putlizer prize-winning science author Matt Ridley recently summed it up “Nobody in science now believes that sexual orientation is caused by events in adolescence”.[1] Evidence suggests that this view is also increasingly common among the educated general public.[2] On the other hand, others suggest that these views are the product of particular scientific foundations promoting social agendas. The American Psychiatric Association has only recognized homosexuality as anything other than an emotional dysfunction since 1973[/url].[/quote]
[quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation]The issue of genetic or other physiological determinants as the basis of sexual orientation is a highly politicised issue. The Advocate, a U.S. gay and lesbian newsmagazine, reported in 1996 that 61% of its readers believed that “it would mostly help gay and lesbian rights if homosexuality were found to be biologically determined”.[5] A cross-national study in the United States, the Philippines, and Sweden found that those who believed that “homosexuals are born that way” held significantly more positive attitudes toward homosexuality than those who believed that “homosexuals choose to be that way” and/or “learn to be that way”.[6] If sexual orientation is seen to be innate, it is a potential argument against attempts to “cure” homosexuality, as well efforts to censor positive representations of lesbians, gays and bisexuals in order to “protect” children or young people from adopting a homosexual orientation. In addition, it supports a minority rights conception of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in law and government policy.
Many objections to the idea of an innate cause of homosexuality come from religious groups and conservatives who focus on a moral rather than medical interpretation of sexual orientation, and seeing an individual’s sexuality as a matter of personal choice or upbringing. However, seeing homosexuality as a “medical” rather than a “moral” issue does not guarantee better treatment for homosexuals. Indeed, many medical explanations of the innateness of sexual orientation have pathologised homosexuality and bisexuality as a kind of disability, and if a “gay gene” was discovered, parents might choose to screen and terminate embryos that carry the gene[/url].[/quote]
[quote=“Bodo”]Daniel,
I don’t believe I ever represented my assertions as 100% validated by science.[/quote]
No, you didn’t. You just presented your opinion as fact. My objection is to really to the one line I quoted where you talked down to MT for having his own opinion.
And your objection to my objection? I think you’d be better off not trying to tell people that their way of thinking is totally wrong and baseless and that they should consider themselves jerks for not knowing better. Gawd!
[quote]I have never stated that genetically, I am gay. I have stated that as far as I’m concerned there is no choice in the matter of sexual orientation. I stand by that assertion. It is my experience.
[/quote]
And I’ve told you what I think of that assertion.
[quote]And, I think if you were completely honest with yourself, you would agree that your attraction to women is beyond a simple choice of choosing women rather than men to be intimately involved with. You could not simply decide one day that I am going to like men, and get a boyfriend.
[/quote]
Oh, I totally disagree. The issue is not whether I could or not. It’s whether I’d want to or not. Why would I want to? If I don’t truely want to, then I won’t. But if that is what I really wanted, I have no doubt I could- and so could anyone else.
And that is being totally honest.
Er, yes, I have. Every relationship I have pursued, whether wise or not, was absolutely a conscious decision. As for attraction, I’d say habit has a LOT to do with it. I didn’t start out being hot for girls all of a sudden. It built up, bit by bit. As I indulged my interest, my interest grew. I suspect if you were honest with yourself, you’d find your attraction to men came much the same way.
Deeply ingrained habits are hard to break, but you know, lots of guys manage to reduce there attraction to girls other than than their spouse or current gf until the pull from anyone but their chosen mate becomes weak or perhaps even non-existent. But then, quite a few guys never do that, too. My explanation: It’s how much they REALLY want it.
First, I don’t think you quite understand what I meant. I don’t mean a simple choice of whether to pursue a girl or not. I’m talking about the actual feelings of attraction to the person.
Second, the point is about our ultimate control over our emotions and even our attractions. I’m making the rather bold assertion that if you are attracted to a person and you really no longer desire that attraction, you can shut it off. Now, I’m talking about individual feelings for people, not an attraction to guys or girls in general. But I believe if that was what a person really really wanted, then they could do that too.
Truth is, I tried to stop liking girls at a point in my adolescence, and I failed. But I know why I failed, and that is that I didn’t really want to stop liking them, even though it seemed rational to me at the time to put girls out of my mind for the time.
But then, how about the girls who stop liking men and start having sex with girls? Couldn’t this be an example of exactly what I’m talking about? Didn’t they make a conscious decision to stop being attracted to the opposite sex and develop more attraction to the same sex? Are you denying this is possible?
I agree that exists. But that’s just a stimulus. Behavior takes time to develop. I don’t know the whole mechanism, but I strongly believe choosing to indulge ideas is a major part in both homosexual and heterosexual drives. Of course, choosing to indulge will be the natural path, while not indulging requires conscious effort.
Probably so, but maybe not so early in the discussion. Do you think it is all totally innate, and we have no control, or do you think it’s mostly up to what we really want? Perhaps we just disagree in degree. But if you think there’s no way we have any input into who we are attracted to, then we’ll likely end up without any sort of common ground on this one.
Or maybe they’d encourage you to find a hetersexual partner. And maybe you could have if you really wanted to. But you didn’t. In the end you really had no desire to change, and I expect you are fine with your life- but you just wish everyone else would have been fine with it as well.
Er, no veiled suggestion on my part. You read that in my statement yourself, though I can understand why you’d think that was my intent.
My argument has nothing to do with your individual life, or morality. Naturally, morality is always an issue with this discussion, but I avoid the issue since I know I’m not qualified to make any judgements about another.
I mentioned abstinence in connection to myself and my heterosexuality, and that is where the comment ends. If I never had sex I would be a virgin, not a heterosexual. I may have heterosexual tendancies, but I’d still wouldn’t be a heterosexual since I wouldn’t actually be “sexual”. It goes back to the indulgence issue. The ultimate indulgence is the physical expression of the thought. And that, too, leads to an even more deeply ingrained habit- which is the foundation of behavior.
You say heterosexuality/homosexuality is all in the genes. I say it’s not. Maybe it’s a moral issue for you, and you’d rather there be no choice involved, but I’m not assign any moral weight to any choice-- other than on child abuse.
And I thought we were talking about homosexuality and pedaphiles.
I was very careful about explaining exactly what I meant, and keeping the definitions precise was important to the debate since whether or not a person is innately homosexual or not has been the key point in our argument.
Sorry if you didn’t understand exactly what I was posting. I was trying to be perfectly clear what my position was. Feel free to end the discussion.
I don’t really care if you want to be persuaded to debate with me. My “political agenda” was this: you tried to tell off MT for asking questions in such a way that did not conform to YOUR political view point, and tried to make it seem that he was an idiot for not “knowing” that there was no choice in whether to be homosexual or not, and not “knowing” that homosexual abuse didn’t lead to homosexuality since everyone knows that it’s genetic. :no-no:
You said:
That’s how you dressed up your assertions. And assertions are meant to sound as fact. That’s why they’re assertions.
I did overstate that you had made a claim of scientific backing. You did not make such a claim. But you did state your opinion as if it were fact, and I challenged it.
My agenda? Keep the discussion honest. You weren’t doing it.
So, what exactly in what I said or how I argued is in any way false or misleading?
I’m not saying being homosexual is an immoral choice. I’m just saying that at least on some level it is a choice. Maybe you can’t choose who you are attracted to, but I believe you can even choose that if you really wish to. But I make absolutely no comment on whether or not allowing yourself to pursue whatever attraction you tend to have is right or wrong, and I have no intention of pushing either the “acceptance agenda” or the “repent, ye sinners” agenda.
And my initial involvement on this thread was not about the homosexuality issue. It’s about abusers having a choice, and their having being abused not being an excuse (if anything it makes it more heinous). That and discussing the Foley case, which isn’t really abuse but about misconduct of adults with minors.
I just chose not to let your assertions stand, and tried to relate things back to the original topic as much as I could.
Sorry, but how can you be “sexual” if you’re not having sex?[/quote]
Quite easily:
[b]Sex·u·al·i·ty[/b]
n.
Concern with or interest in sexual activity.
[b]Sex·u·al[/b]
adj.
Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.
Its against the law to plot a murder, even if you don’t carry it out.
Actually, I think one who will vote or who is entitled to vote is also referred to as a “voter”. Yes, see this:
[b]Vot·er[/b]
n.
One who votes.
One who has the right to vote.
In any event, I have provided above three definitions that illustrate that one can be “sexual” and have “sexuality” without being engaged in sex.
Wrong.
[b]het·er·o·sex·u·al[/b]
adj. - Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex.
Correct.
Wrong. Having a homosexual orientation makes one a homosexual. This is a very simple notion.
Huh?
I am aware that science has not yet proved beyong a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality and heterosexuality is genetic, but, as a casual observer of the news, it seems rather apparent that most indicators are pointing to sexuality being biological, i.e., genetic rather than a choice. I think nearly everyone on this planet will agree, also, that they have not made a choice as to which sex they are attracted to, but rather they simply are attracted to one sex or the other, and some are attracted to both sexes. We all make choices regarding how we act on our sexual attractions, but, our sexuality doesn’t seem to be a choice.
But, such thoughts alone, even without action, would make you a pedophile.
The decision is whether or not to act on the desires, impulses, attractions, etc. The decision is not whether to be a pedophile, or a heterosexual, or a homosexual.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that being abused justifies your abusing others.
[quote=“bodo”]And, I think if you were completely honest with yourself, you would agree that your attraction to women is beyond a simple choice of choosing women rather than men to be intimately involved with. You could not simply decide one day that I am going to like men, and get a boyfriend.
[/quote]
We’re talking about homosexuality and heterosexuality. The issue most certainly is whether or not you could choose either orientation.
Nonsense.
Are you attracted to women by choice? Did you one day decide that you would seek women for sexual partners rather than men? Or, have you simply always been attracted to women rather than to men?
That’s the point. You wouldn’t want to choose… you are simply sexually attracted to one or the other sex. I never considered any choice… I have always been attracted to a certain sex. Isn’t that the way it is for the vast majority of people?
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]If I don’t truly want to, then I won’t. But if that is what I really wanted, I have no doubt I could- and so could anyone else.
And that is being totally honest.[/quote]
You may well believe what you are posting, and thus I will not say that you are dishonest. However, your statements are, IMO, illogical and they seem to disregard the current wight of science, and you also seem to be dismissing the experiences of nearly everyone with respect to sexuality and sexual orientation.
By arguing the one-drop rule or ratios, you obfuscate the issue. I suppose its true, or at least possible that everyone has a certain degre of attraction to the same sex (the old embryonic yin in the yang and embryonic yang in the yin). However, it isn’t important, IMO, that we identify an exact cut-off point where we can label people in their sexuality (unless you’ve got some political agenda you are pushing). Some people feel sufficiently attracted to one sex or the other to be either homo- or heterosexual. Other people are more ambiguous and they are attracted to both sexes somewhat equally… these folks are referred to as bi-sexual.
How is that not a good enough explanation?
Correct. The thoughts (when frequent or dominant) indicate pedophilia.
The actions would make one a pederast, i.e. child molester.
Ergo, not all pedophiles are child molesters. Pederasts, rather than pedophiles, are the problem.
However, your analogy to homosexuality doesn’t work. This is because the pedophile/pederast labels refer by definition to attraction versus action. The same is simply not true of the terms ending in -sexual. The latter are broadly taken to mean attraction, e.g., “of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.”
We might not be in very deep disagreement here. Let me try to find some middle ground for consensus, and perhaps we can put this behind us. I will concede that in many people’s self-definition, the perception they have of their own sexuality, sexual experience and sexual actions may play a role. This is especially true of those in the large gray area of bisexuality. Some may refuse to acknowledge or act on their homosexual desires, for example, focusing on and acting on their hetero desires instead. It’s understandable that a person in this particular subset might think they’re choosing to be straight, and might therefore erroneously think that sexuality is for most people a choice.
Of course, this subset is not really choosing their sexual orientation. They’re bi, perhaps ‘hetero with bi tendencies’ if you prefer – and what they’re choosing is what part of their orientation to acknowledge, focus on, use in their self-concept, and act on. If that’s all you meant by ‘choosing’, then with a careful rephrasing, we might be in agreement after all. 
Correct, but only if it is a primary or frequently recurring thing. A fleeting thought once in a blue moon, which you then supress or dismiss, wouldn’t qualify you for the label.
It’s not a set of discrete categories. Imagine a continuous gradation from white to black going through a long set of grays. There’s no need to search for an imaginary cutoff point. The straight/bi/gay trichotomy is an artificial set of discrete categories which many try to impose artificially on this grayscale continuum. Reality is more complex and as you correctly point out, sometimes shifts over time.
Well perhaps you woke up one morning at age 13 and said “Hmm, I think I’ll be attracted to girls instead of boys”, but the rest of the species probably didn’t have that luxury. 
I would also caution you – the majority of people whom I’ve heard espouse the “sexuality is a choice” nonsense are homophobic, right wing religious fundamentalists, so you’ll have to decide for yourself whether you want to risk guilt by association with that crowd.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
But, such thoughts alone, even without action, would make you a pedophile.[/quote]
I think that in Spielberg’s movie “Minority Report” he was trying to touch upon that idea. Of course for theatrical reasons, he had to go thru with the idea.
I strongly disagree with your premise TM. Having thoughts alone doesn’t make you a pedophile. When it begins to manifest itself in the chat rooms with kids, and looking at photos and eventually with children then by definition I would say one would be a pedophile.
We have a million thoughts a day. They say men think about sex at least 3 to 5 times a day. And I’m certain many men don’t have sexual thoughts that are “normal”,i.e. bondage, etc. But that wouldn’t make the man a rapist or a sadist.
Quite easily:
[b]Sex·u·al·i·ty[/b] n.
Concern with or interest in sexual activity.[/quote]
Or, from Webster’s:
[quote]Main Entry: sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "sek-sh&-'wa-l&-tE
Function: noun
: the quality or state of being sexual : a : the condition of having sex b : sexual activity c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/sexuality
[/quote]
You caught me here. We’re talking about a very fine distinction, and I came down on the wrong end of it in that sentence.
“homosexual” when used as an adjective refers to anything related to the same sex, and particularly having interest in sexual activity with the same sex. There’s no argument there, my question “how can you be sexual” obviously makes use of an adjective form.
Prior to posting the previous statement, I did check a number of defintions, although Answers.com is not one I chose. I went to the American Heritage dictionary, Websters, and Oxford. Unfortunately, the results are ambiguous. Some specifically say a homosexual is a person who engages in sexual activity with others of the same sex, but also include “a homosexual person” where homosexual as an adjective includes both meanings.
So, while I can still argue that “homosexual” as a noun only refers to people who practice sex with the same sex, you can argue quite strongly that it also means someone who has an attraction to members of the sex. I’d say the majority of English speakers are against me, so by most defintions I’m wrong-- although there are those who would agree with my restriction of the usage.
I’ll have to concede on this point.
Its against the law to plot a murder, even if you don’t carry it out.[/quote]
Yes, but then you’re just a conspirator, not a murderer.
But, there is no definition of “murderer” that includes the thought or an inclination towards murder, whereas a “homosexual” can have that meaning.
Actually, I think one who will vote or who is entitled to vote is also referred to as a “voter”. Yes, see this:
[b]Vot·er[/b]
n.
One who votes.
One who has the right to vote.[/quote]
So, in one sense no, in another sense yes. Much like the term homosexual, so there are two competing or perhaps complimentary definitions for the term. Fair enough.
Wrong.[/quote]
Well, that does depend on what you mean by relationship. I guess in relation to all men I am “homosexual” and in relation to all women I am “heterosexual” if by sex we mean gender.
But if we mean “sexual relationship” meaning “having sexual intimacy” then if you don’t have a sexual relationship then you cannot have either homosexual or heterosexual relationships.
So, I was right.
The previous statement “You’re not a homosexual until you’ve practiced homosexuality” can be argued with, though, and I’ve conceded that the definition can be expanded (and in common practice is expanded) to include those who have such an attraction.
Wrong. Having a homosexual orientation makes one a homosexual. This is a very simple notion.[/quote]
Actually, it’s a complex notion, and it causes and has caused a lot of difficulty. There is a definition of homosexual that restricts the noun form to those who engage in the act of sex with those of the same gender, but there’s another definition that extends it to having sexual desires, and that’s the one preferred by people discussing the issue here.
Not only has it not proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is no hard evidence for genetic determination at all. None. There is only evidence that genetics has an influence.
The best research has shown that there is probably a gene, or set of genes, in a particular region that promotes an attraction towards men and those guys who have this gene are statistically more likely to be homosexual later on in life.
Defining “sexuality” as what gender we are primarily attracted to, I’ll agree.
But, such thoughts alone, even without action, would make you a pedophile.[/quote]
Right. By definition of the word-- noting DB’s later qualification.
The decision is whether or not to act on the desires, impulses, attractions, etc. The decision is not whether to be a pedophile, or a heterosexual, or a homosexual.[/quote]
I still disagree here about the pedophile part, and to a lesser extent the hetero/homo sexual part.
I believe we do have control over what thoughts we allow ourselves to develop. We don’t control the stimuli we receive from our own physiology or from our environment, but we can control what we allow ourselves to continue to think about.
In the case of pedaphilia, a person should recognize the thoughts they are having as unacceptable and simply not entertain them. Entertaining them, even without acting on them right off, that’s what leads to a person being a pedophile.
Now, if you want to define pedophile as a person who has a predisposition to those kinds of thoughts, whether or not they ever choose to entertain them, well, that’s ok.
That was part of the original question, though. But seems this is mostly a “what is homosexuality” thread now. I was just trying to stay on topic. So much for that.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]
I would also caution you – the majority of people whom I’ve heard espouse the “sexuality is a choice” nonsense are homophobic, right wing religious fundamentalists, so you’ll have to decide for yourself whether you want to risk guilt by association with that crowd. 
[/quote]
Well sign me up, because I think it is a choice. I think that at certain ages people become aware of their sexual attactions, but until they get more information of what sexuality involves then they make a choice. They choose for themselves to be with partners that reflect their personal desire which is another word of choice.
I understand that was tongue-in-cheek, but that’s side-stepping my whole argument.
I didn’t wake up at age 13 and decide I was going to be heterosexual. At age 11 or 12 I saw girls and found something interesting or appealing. I’d suddenly get aroused and not really know why. At some point I started focusing on girls, and that would feed my arousal or lead to it. My argument is, whatever the stimulus I was responding to, it was my focus on the girls around me, allowing myself to fantasize, that lead me to become heterosexual.
I wasn’t born heterosexual, because there was a period of some 12 or so years where I would not be characterized about thinking about sex with the opposite sex. It was only after puberty that you could call me “heterosexual” by the “showing attraction, interest” definition of the word.
Now, if you want to redefine the word as to being predisposed towards be stimulated by one sex or the other, we’ll have to wait for more research.
I don’t really care if people mistake me for a homophobic right-wing fundamentalist. That isn’t my attitude and if someone makes the mistake of lumping me together with all the rest, it makes little difference to me.
Believing we are slaves to genetics is what I would call nonsense. My position is that genetics plays a part, but so does our environment and our own choice.
Seems like you had no choice in the matter. Seems like you didn’t even consider the matter. You just naturally were/are heterosexual.
I see what you are saying. But, I think you’re wrong. Can I prove that you are wrong? Probably not. But, to my knowledge, the most recent studies are showing that there are differences in hetero- and homosexual individuals shortly after conception… and the fact that you were not sexually aware until puberty or just into puberty doesn’t mean, IMO, that you were not a sexual being. You simply had not matured to the point of being sexually aware of things.
For absolute proof, yes. But, we’re not likely to ever prove this fact to some folks… and again, I think current studies are indicating the very likelihood that we are predisposed or programmed sexually somewhere on that black to white scale that Dragon Bones identified.
Sure, our environment plays some part, I suppose. I mean, men in prison, where no women exist, sometimes resort to homosexual activity. Does that make them homosexuals? Or, does it simply make them sexual with no choice (other than self gratification or abstinence)? Or, imagine a man, born on a deserted island to his mother after survivng a shipwreck, and there are no men on the island other than himself… and imagine that he is genetically predisposed or programmed to be homosexual… what if he lived his entire life on that island and never saw another man and never even knew the idea of a man, other than himself? I wonder how that environment would influence his sexuality?
But, those environmental situations are extreme. Most of us do not live in prisons or on deserted islands. We all live in environments that are pretty much the same, given a few variables. And what of people who grow up in the same neighborhoods in families with similar values and economic circumstances… how do we explain that one person “chooses” to be heterosexual and enjoy a relatively easy social life, and his buddy next door “chooses” to be homosexual, with all of the social and possibly familial problems that could result from such a “choice”? Why would anyone make a “choice” to become possibly a family and social outcast, to face discrimination on a near daily basis, to face prejudice at work and on the street? That’s a notion that I cannot get my head around.
If its indeed a choice… why would anyone choose the difficult choice?
The former, restrictive definition better fits the term “practicing homosexual”.
Now you’re just being silly. The phrase “born heterosexual” doesn’t mean the sexuality is exhibited the moment one is born. Of course it is manifested primarily during and after puberty. Would you like another pancake on that bunny? 