Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 1:49:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I think it's more complicated than what either of you seem to think it is.    I'm not sure every person can just check a box on the application(so to speak).

I'll disagree.

The only thing I can think of that makes this complicated is that there are people who are attracted to the same sex who would be influenced by what people think they should do, and live a heterosexual lifestyle.  It doesn't make them less attracted to the same sex.

If you claim you tell people about your theory on this "propaganda" and they agree with you and have this moment of enlightenment, I'll claim you're a liar.

Claim whatever you want.  I'm telling the truth, while you continue to lie and pretend an agenda you support doesn't exist.

Largely because I don't agree with the argument that anything would change if people used your definition of homosexuality.

You REALLY think nothing would change if everyone agreed sexuality was a choice because no propaganda existed and there was no movement to suggest otherwise?

Then you are either in deliberate denial in an effort to support the agenda, or you are incredibly naive. I think it's the first one, but the second is an outside possibility.

(I'm calling it "yours" for simplicity reasons. When you see "yours" substitute it with "what you think the definition of homosexuality is."  I'm not as wordy as you are.)

Just replace "yours" with logical (i.e. the logical definition) and that will keep it just as simple and maintain accuracy at the same time.

They could still ask for equal rights, and I don't see why there would be much of a difference in reaction towards it. 

Again, this is you being naive, either deliberately or not.

People are (in modern times) far more accepting of biological diversity than they are of choices which create diversity. If you don't understand that, you really need to do some research and compare people's reactions in both situations, because the reactions  of most people are incredibly different.

I think you already know that, though. You just won't concede even the simplest point to me out of sheer stubbornness.

 You have yet to explain what the difference would be.  If there IS no difference, then your argument that the definition has been manipulated for the benefit of a group of people falls on its face.

Of course there is a huge difference, which I already explained: People are as a whole far less accepting of diversity when it is by choice rather than biology. THAT is why the agenda was to get people to think sexuality is biology rather than choice.

If you can't understand why I'm putting quotes around the word "agenda" then you're one of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with, or you're being deliberately dense.

You're putting agenda in quotes because you want to deny its existence since you agree with it. So you've essentially turned quotations marks into your own form of propaganda designed to help an agenda you agree with.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 1:49:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I think it's more complicated than what either of you seem to think it is.    I'm not sure every person can just check a box on the application(so to speak).

I think people that struggle with their sexuality don't struggle because they can't decide. They struggle because they know that being gay makes life harder. Choosing to admit that you are gay is a life changing event.

Posted by bistiza on 4/30/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):

If you claim you tell people about your theory on this "propaganda" and they agree with you and have this moment of enlightenment, I'll claim you're a liar.

Claim whatever you want.  I'm telling the truth, while you continue to lie and pretend an agenda you support doesn't exist.

Largely because I don't agree with the argument that anything would change if people used your definition of homosexuality.

You REALLY think nothing would change if everyone agreed sexuality was a choice because no propaganda existed and there was no movement to suggest otherwise?

Then you are either in deliberate denial in an effort to support the agenda, or you are incredibly naive. I think it's the first one, but the second is an outside possibility.

(I'm calling it "yours" for simplicity reasons. When you see "yours" substitute it with "what you think the definition of homosexuality is."  I'm not as wordy as you are.)

Just replace "yours" with logical (i.e. the logical definition) and that will keep it just as simple and maintain accuracy at the same time.

They could still ask for equal rights, and I don't see why there would be much of a difference in reaction towards it. 

Again, this is you being naive, either deliberately or not.

People are (in modern times) far more accepting of biological diversity than they are of choices which create diversity. If you don't understand that, you really need to do some research and compare people's reactions in both situations, because the reactions  of most people are incredibly different.

I think you already know that, though. You just won't concede even the simplest point to me out of sheer stubbornness.

 You have yet to explain what the difference would be.  If there IS no difference, then your argument that the definition has been manipulated for the benefit of a group of people falls on its face.

Of course there is a huge difference, which I already explained: People are as a whole far less accepting of diversity when it is by choice rather than biology. THAT is why the agenda was to get people to think sexuality is biology rather than choice.

If you can't understand why I'm putting quotes around the word "agenda" then you're one of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with, or you're being deliberately dense.

You're putting agenda in quotes because you want to deny its existence since you agree with it. So you've essentially turned quotations marks into your own form of propaganda designed to help an agenda you agree with.

Why are you picking apart my sentences and making the same point with each one?  Make a point once, please.

Why should people discriminate based on who they're in a relationship with?  Does that sound right?  Does that sound "LOGICAL!!!"?  There wouldn't be a difference, you'd still have the fight for equal rights.

I think people that struggle with their sexuality don't struggle because they can't decide. They struggle because they know that being gay makes life harder. Choosing to admit that you are gay is a life changing event.

I disagree. I think people struggle to make a decision for many reasons.

One of the most common reasons is because they are more attracted to those of their own gender but have some attraction to the opposite gender and must consider other factors. Do they follow their greatest attraction by itself? Do they follow the lesser attraction for some other reason or reasons? It can be difficult to make a choice in those kinds of circumstances.

I agree with your last sentiment, but I don't think it's about admitting anything, so I would re-word it as follows: Choosing to BE gay is a life changing event.

Why are you picking apart my sentences and making the same point with each one?  Make a point once, please.

It doesn't matter - you've failed to address the point either way.

Why should people discriminate based on who they're in a relationship with?  Does that sound right?  Does that sound "LOGICAL!!!"?  There wouldn't be a difference, you'd still have the fight for equal rights.

No, discrimination is wrong.

And now we're getting somewhere on the other front. You see...

The fight for equal rights would be much more difficult if there were not a propaganda campaign designed to make people think sexuality is about biology rather than choices, BECAUSE people are far less accepting of diversity which is chosen.

I'm all for equal rights, but putting forth a campaign to convince people of a lie to grease your path to those rights is ridiculous and wrong.

"...BECAUSE people are far less accepting of diversity which is chosen."

Except if it's chosen based on their attraction.  Which accounts for at least 99% of situations in homosexuality.  Very few people would choose to be act homosexually if their preference was to the opposite sex.

In what situation, aside from this topic, are people not accepting of diversity that is chosen?  Where rights aren't granted because people act a certain way?  Aside from criminal acts.

Except if it's chosen based on their attraction.

No. People are far less accepting of diversity when it is chosen, no matter the reason behind  the choice. That's WHY it's necessary to convince people the choice doesn't exist and it is actually a matter of biology.

 Very few people would choose to be act homosexually if their preference was to the opposite sex.

So what? People can choose based upon things other than their preference - we established that a long time ago.

You and others suggested that might make them less happy, but I demonstrated that the reasons for them choosing less than their ultimate preference may actually result in them becoming happier.  People do this all the time. They would prefer to be with someone with a certain feature, but perhaps there are better reasons not to choose someone with that feature.

In what situation, aside from this topic, are people not accepting of diversity that is chosen? 

People almost universally look down upon sexual decisions of others which are considered taboo. In our modern culture that includes not only homosexuality (which seems to be changing thanks to the propaganda) but also prostitution, polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, sadist and masochistic behaviors, and several others.

All of these are choices, and yet the propaganda would have everyone believe that homosexuality alone is somehow not a choice but the others all remain choices.

Additionally, modern society also looks down upon the perceived choices people make with their finances, in particular casting a judgmental eye toward the poor. They are seen as being entirely responsible for their lack of finances or ability to pay for things, when in fact a great many factors can and do contribute to financial hardship.

If you doubt that is true, I challenge you to go to a frequent social gathering in an area where no one knows you on multiple occasions. Make sure you dress in casual or even worn clothing and wear nothing expensive, and the first time you go, tell everyone you meet that  you're on welfare and you hate being poor because you can't afford to buy beer. Then tell me people don't judge you based upon their perception of your decisions.

"I'll disagree.  The only thing I can think of that makes this complicated is that there are people who are attracted to the same sex who would be influenced by what people think they should do, and live a heterosexual lifestyle.  It doesn't make them less attracted to the same sex."

"I think people that struggle with their sexuality don't struggle because they can't decide. They struggle because they know that being gay makes life harder. Choosing to admit that you are gay is a life changing event."


Since I think you're both basically saying the same thing, I'll just disagree with both at once.     While the word "sex" is being tossed around, I don't think either of you believe that a sex act has to take place since your stance indicates that one is born gay/straight.   That it's not a choice.   I don't necessarily disagree with that.  However, if you read into what I was asking, I think some people are born being attracted to both or neither sex.   Let's just start with the asexual person.   They just have no interest.   However, at some point, they meet a person they connect with.  A best friend so to speak.  Doesn't matter if it's the same or different sex.  They commit to the person and, eventually sex becomes part of their life.   Are they straight or gay based on that action?

Posted by bistiza on 4/30/2013 8:42:00 AM (view original):

Everything you listed, other than homosexual, is basically a career (although criminal is debatable).  Are you only a homosexual now if you're gay for pay?

It has nothing to do with career - the reason the people are given those labels is because they  are all  based upon what those people DO. That's the point.

When I worked in an office the summer after my first year of undergrad, I listened to soft rock every day at work.  However, what I LIKE is harder classic rock.  But was I really a soft rock fan during that summer because what I actually did listen to (my actions) demonstrated that attribute? 

If you willingly chose to listen to soft rock (rather than simply listening because of someone else's preference), then you were a soft rock fan at that time regardless of what you say you like better.

Saying that we are defined exclusively by our actions and not our natural preferences is just stupid, sometimes our environment forces choices on us, but that does not dictate our preference.

We were never talking about circumstances which involve some sort of force from outside yourself, but only about the choices you willingly make.

The only thing that "is just stuipid" is to try to compare willing and unwilling choices. I suggest you are only doing that because you can't find any other way to even attempt an argument here. This one just doesn't work.

I'm curious what bis thinks about porn stars. There are plenty of straight (and married) porn stars who have sex on camera with people of the same gender. Are they only gay while having sex and then do they immediately turn back straight? Or do they actually have to have sex with their spouse to establish their straightness?

If someone is going back and forth between genders in terms of sexual encounters, they are clearly bisexual. In fact, that's so clear I'm not sure how anyone could think otherwise.

I can also list a bunch of preferences and point out that they exist in spite of choices or realities that may suggest otherwise.

Except all those preferences say is that you like or enjoy something; they don't establish you as being anything because you haven't done anything to demonstrate it.

You listed "it wasn't logical" as the reason the definition is made by propaganda.  You're arguing it doesn't apply to all words, but the above statement insinuates otherwise.

No, it doesn't "insinuate" anything. You're assuming that, and as I already stated, you are doing so in error.

"Aimed to justify choices of sexuality" - I don't understand.  Please clarify, be specific.  Not WORDY, but specific.

We've been over this many times. People choose who they are with in romantic and/or sexual situations, and that defines their sexuality.  Some people feel the need to justify these choices and have decided to do so by declaring it isn't a choice and forwarding propaganda to convince others of the same.

I would prefer to be going to O's games, but right now that's a difficult thing for me to do.  There are substantial obstacles in the way of my attending Orioles games.

You're once again trying to compare a situation of forced choice to a situation of willing choice, and it doesn't work that way.

Your willing choices and actions are the ones that define your sexuality, not forced choices.

It's not impossible for me to go to Orioles games, just more difficult.  It's not a FORCED choice to see the A's more often, it's just easier.

It's easier in the country to be straight than gay.  So your attempt to delineate homosexuality/heterosexuality from O's/A's fanship is only proving my point.  Sometimes we reject our natural preferences because things are just easier or less expensive that way.  But we'd be happier if we could just as easily pursue our preferences.  If it was just as cheap and easy for me to attend Orioles games and watch them all as it is to attend and watch A's games, I would do that.  And if society and the government removed the obstacles that exist for homosexual couples relative to heterosexual couples, many more biological homosexuals would pursue homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships.

Of course, you didn't address the real point because you realize I'm right and that your attempt to compare homosexuality to career choices was stupid from the outset...

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
"I'll disagree.  The only thing I can think of that makes this complicated is that there are people who are attracted to the same sex who would be influenced by what people think they should do, and live a heterosexual lifestyle.  It doesn't make them less attracted to the same sex."

"I think people that struggle with their sexuality don't struggle because they can't decide. They struggle because they know that being gay makes life harder. Choosing to admit that you are gay is a life changing event."


Since I think you're both basically saying the same thing, I'll just disagree with both at once.     While the word "sex" is being tossed around, I don't think either of you believe that a sex act has to take place since your stance indicates that one is born gay/straight.   That it's not a choice.   I don't necessarily disagree with that.  However, if you read into what I was asking, I think some people are born being attracted to both or neither sex.   Let's just start with the asexual person.   They just have no interest.   However, at some point, they meet a person they connect with.  A best friend so to speak.  Doesn't matter if it's the same or different sex.  They commit to the person and, eventually sex becomes part of their life.   Are they straight or gay based on that action?

I disagree with the premise. I don't think people are born asexual. A bisexual gets to choose.

It's not impossible for me to go to Orioles games, just more difficult.  It's not a FORCED choice to see the A's more often, it's just easier.

One thing being easier or more difficult than another is a factor that can influence your choice. That doesn't somehow mean it isn't a choice in the first place.

Sometimes we reject our natural preferences because things are just easier or less expensive that way.  But we'd be happier if we could just as easily pursue our preferences.

We don't always get what we want, though, so we have to find a way to make what we THINK will be the best decision, and even then we are sometimes wrong. We can't always say what will or would have made us happier, as some decisions are too complex, and some may leave us wondering "what if" about the other option or options.

And if society and the government removed the obstacles that exist for homosexual couples relative to heterosexual couples, many more biological homosexuals would pursue homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships.

Perhaps this would be true, but as I already said, there are many more factors at work here than attraction, society, and the government.

Of course, you didn't address the real point because you realize I'm right and that your attempt to compare homosexuality to career choices was stupid from the outset...

No, I addressed exactly what you said because the comparison between homosexuality and other terms we give to people based upon their actions was completely accurate and continues to remain so.

The only thing that is "stupid from the outset" was your decision to try to compare unwilling choices to willing choices, something I see you have now wisely abandoned.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/30/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
"I'll disagree.  The only thing I can think of that makes this complicated is that there are people who are attracted to the same sex who would be influenced by what people think they should do, and live a heterosexual lifestyle.  It doesn't make them less attracted to the same sex."

"I think people that struggle with their sexuality don't struggle because they can't decide. They struggle because they know that being gay makes life harder. Choosing to admit that you are gay is a life changing event."


Since I think you're both basically saying the same thing, I'll just disagree with both at once.     While the word "sex" is being tossed around, I don't think either of you believe that a sex act has to take place since your stance indicates that one is born gay/straight.   That it's not a choice.   I don't necessarily disagree with that.  However, if you read into what I was asking, I think some people are born being attracted to both or neither sex.   Let's just start with the asexual person.   They just have no interest.   However, at some point, they meet a person they connect with.  A best friend so to speak.  Doesn't matter if it's the same or different sex.  They commit to the person and, eventually sex becomes part of their life.   Are they straight or gay based on that action?

I disagree with the premise. I don't think people are born asexual. A bisexual gets to choose.

So you think people are born gay/straight/bisexual but not asexual?

Do you recognize how that sounds?

If biz were smarter, he'd be all over it. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/30/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
"I'll disagree.  The only thing I can think of that makes this complicated is that there are people who are attracted to the same sex who would be influenced by what people think they should do, and live a heterosexual lifestyle.  It doesn't make them less attracted to the same sex."

"I think people that struggle with their sexuality don't struggle because they can't decide. They struggle because they know that being gay makes life harder. Choosing to admit that you are gay is a life changing event."


Since I think you're both basically saying the same thing, I'll just disagree with both at once.     While the word "sex" is being tossed around, I don't think either of you believe that a sex act has to take place since your stance indicates that one is born gay/straight.   That it's not a choice.   I don't necessarily disagree with that.  However, if you read into what I was asking, I think some people are born being attracted to both or neither sex.   Let's just start with the asexual person.   They just have no interest.   However, at some point, they meet a person they connect with.  A best friend so to speak.  Doesn't matter if it's the same or different sex.  They commit to the person and, eventually sex becomes part of their life.   Are they straight or gay based on that action?

I disagree with the premise. I don't think people are born asexual. A bisexual gets to choose.

So you think people are born gay/straight/bisexual but not asexual?

Do you recognize how that sounds?

If biz were smarter, he'd be all over it. 

I don't think that's unreasonable. I've never met an asexual person before and I can't think of ever hearing about one. If that happens, then sure, that person gets to choose also. So what?

No. People are far less accepting of diversity when it is chosen, no matter the reason behind  the choice. That's WHY it's necessary to convince people the choice doesn't exist and it is actually a matter of biology.