[GtA01]

Well, I'm bisexual and I'm fine with that. Best of both worlds.

[MrDanceWithLance]

I'm straight, but I support gays and bisexuals.

-This isn't a topic for stating your sexuality, it's a discussion topic around the issue-

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Sunday, Mar 11 2012, 10:13

[MikeWh]

QUOTE (Imperativity @ Monday, Feb 20 2012, 08:22)

I myself, I am pretty sure I'm gay. Ever since about the age of fourteen; I've had my doubts. I'm eighteen years old now, and every day I wake and tell myself that I'm bound to wake up one day and lose all sexual 'urges' towards men; and that women will appeal to me. Currently, I feel as if there is a barrier between how attracted I should be to women. To be absolutely blunt, if I watch straight pornography; I have to almost tell myself I'm enjoying it. Whereas if I watch gay pornography, the 'barrier' isn't present. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all flamboyant, I act completely straight and no-one has ever questioned my sexuality. Back to when I was fourteen, curiosity killed the cat, and I decided to turn on a video of a guy masturbating just to see what all the fuss is about. Instantly, I was aroused and finished within what seemed like seconds. Ever since then, I've told myself it's just hormones, and that I'm straight like everyone else. I've had girlfriends, but my most recent relationship really opened my eyes. I'd do 'things' with my girlfriend, and I wouldn't be aroused whatsoever. Without going into too much detail, I'd masturbate her, she'd literally orgasm in-front of me and my cock would be as flacid as a dead baby. Needless to say, that relationship didn't last too long. I'd talk to other friends and they'd say that when they're with girls, they get erections within seconds. I, on the other hand fail to. I've only told close friends, but none of my family know whatsoever. I want to tell my brother as he's essentially my best friend; but I'm still afraid to. In the past, as banter, he'll call me gay or whatever; little does he know that his brother is actually gay. To strengthen this fact, I've done 'stuff' with friends, and have loved it. The weird thing is, is that the thought of having sexual intercourse with another man turns me off completely. I'd happily do other things, but sex with a male itself disgusts me. This is where I'm confused, it's practically set-in-stone that I'm gay, but I'd never have sexual intercourse with another bloke. I'm 18 years old, my mother must wonder why I don't have a girlfriend, and sometimes jokingly says stuff like "don't you want a girlfriend?". I have a step-father who is pretty 'common', if you know what I mean, and where he'd be partying every night back in his childhood, I'm sitting in my room playing video games. I feel very cut-off from the world, and I'm still unaware of who I am as a person. This is a very depressing situation and mindframe to be in. I'm thinking of coming out soon, maybe then I can actually enjoy myself and feel free. So what do you guys think? Do you think sexuality is a choice? I have a friend who thinks it's a decision to be gay, which in my eyes is very ignorant of him. Perhaps you are gay yourself? When did you come-out? How did you feel around the time you discovered you were gay? Discuss below.

Don't know if Busted means banned, but I will assume you can still read this! Just come off shift so I'm a tad knackered!

I believe your sexuality isn't a choice, and as a fairly out gay man with a partner I will say I'm somewhat an expert in this field. From what you've written, I fully empathise - I've had girlfriends in my time and I would perform various sex acts on them and be flaccid as a wet sock. This was an early attempt to change my sexuality, but you can't. I was unhappy and not aroused and definitely not attracted to it. It's not a choice, believe me mate!

I first 'realised' I was gay when I was 4, it sounds mad but I knew I was different and knew I was a 'poofter' (as my father would say) just before I turned 6. I was scared. For the next 9/10 years of my life I was living a lie - pretending to be straight, having girlfriends and fabricating attraction whilst in secret, behind everybody's back I was seeing guys and having sex with men, told a few friends but was desperate for my family not to find out. Scared of being who I was, I tried everything to appear normal and at one stage change it all.

When I did actually choose to tell people was a weird one; I've had lots of 'coming out's and there will be countless more, my first I was 11, I told my best mate, who was a star - she didn't judge but said "Isn't it too early to know?" - it isn't, trust me! After that I was talking to my mate at the time about penises and one thing lead to another, he found out and we both ended up in bed. We fell out and he outed me to a few people and rumours spread, I flat out denied them and got on with life, it blew over and I actually told one of my female mates, she took it well, then I told my best mate, as in the one you care about the most etc, I was expecting rejection, he just hugged me and said I had nothing to worry about and he'd look after me if anything happened - so that was a relief, at this point I was 14. School managed to buy my lies until I left in 2004, my parents had to wait another 7 years to find out, I found the love of my life after being messed around and within weeks I'd told my mother and my father, he didn't react too well but he's come round since and now I'm aiming to have a civil partnership next year It's such a relief to come out, BUT only you can know when it's the right time - the best way to deal with it in my experience is there's no big issue, it's just part of me - maybe wait until you fall in love, but if it can't wait, do it sooner - Only you will know when

If the idea of gay sex arouses you and the thought of that arousal is what makes you feel sick, then you've caused that by trying not to like it, you actually need to try it - awful as it sounds! Try installing Grindr on your phone or something!

Any other issues regarding coming out and being gay, PM me - I'll be more than happy to help anybody

[TargetTango]

The fact that many states are putting same sex marriage to a popular vote is pathetic. The civil rights of minorities should never be put up to popular vote.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (TargetTango @ Sunday, May 13 2012, 15:38)

The fact that many states are putting same sex marriage to a popular vote is pathetic. The civil rights of minorities should never be put up to popular vote.

Agreed. It's going to need to be decided by the courts. The lawyers from Bush v. Gore are currently taking it to the Supreme Court.

[MikeWh]

Giving this a bump because in the press in the UK, The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) had a candidate say that the adoption or fostering of children from the care system to homosexual couples (men specifically mind...) is 'child abuse'.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchive...is-child-abuse/

Now don't read the comments on that blog, you'll be there forever and it's just a religious tirade of "You can't force your opinions and choices upon children" - much like the religions that are forced upon children (myself included, when I was very young and throughout my early teens I was forced into Catholicism)

But what are your opinions? Is it wrong that homosexual partners can adopt, is it abusive?

My opinion is that there's no evidence to suggest it has a detrimental effect on the child, no evidence to suggest you can 'turn' a child, more evidence to suggest that children do better with homosexual couples than they would with some heterosexual couples, so what's the issue? Would they not rather these children, many of whom have been abused, to be in a situation where they're with the person who's the same gender as the abuser? Or is with another abusive couple?

[Melchior]

QUOTE (MikeWh @ Thursday, Nov 29 2012, 00:18)

But what are your opinions? Is it wrong that homosexual partners can adopt, is it abusive?

No, certainly not. I don't draw any distinction between a homosexual couple and an androgynous heterosexual couple - that is, a couple without clearly defined gender roles. To a child, what would be the difference?

[Ziggy455]

In my opinion I find that the line between attraction only causes issues and complexes. I'm straight, and I'm also completely content with gays and lesbians. It's their bodies, their minds, and their hearts that are at play. If two men wanna be together, cool, same for women! We're the same race and it happens. It's when you get people saying such strange hypothetical garbage like: "Oh men can marry men!? What next? Women will wanna be able to marry their dogs!"

It's just right-wing bullsh*t. Your sexuality is what you make it. I tow the line at necrophilia or pedophilia. Same gender relationships are A Okay to me.


NOW JEWS ON THE OTHER HAND.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (MikeWh @ Wednesday, Nov 28 2012, 07:18)

Is it wrong that homosexual partners can adopt, is it abusive?

no, of course not.

any 2 people (and even 1) can raise a healthy and happy child.
their sexual orientation (and even marital status) is irrelevant.

[xWH1T30UTx]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Nov 28 2012, 18:41)

QUOTE (MikeWh @ Thursday, Nov 29 2012, 00:18) But what are your opinions? Is it wrong that homosexual partners can adopt, is it abusive? No, certainly not. I don't draw any distinction between a homosexual couple and an androgynous heterosexual couple - that is, a couple without clearly defined gender roles. To a child, what would be the difference?

Agreed. As a child, I never noticed any real differences between a man and a woman's relationship when compared to, say, a man and a man. As an adult, I feel the exact same way. People are just..people. This is why I have no problem with any sexuality whatsoever. Obviously, everyone has preferences. But the way I see it, a romantic relationship is really defined by the connection between two people's personalities, not by what said people have in their pants.

That being said, on a completely sexual side of things, it cannot really be changed. And it shouldn't have to be. Some people are aroused by the opposite sex, and some people aren't. Some are aroused by the same sex, and some people are aroused by both. Nothing is wrong with any of 'em.

While I do realize that sexual arousal and emotional connection often go hand in hand, they don't always have to. An odd thought that I've always had on this is "What if my girlfriend was a guy?" Sure, the sexual arousal wouldn't be there anymore for me. And that's an instant deal breaker for a lot of people. But again, the idea of personality would come into play. If my partner treated me the exact same as she always has, but her anatomy was different, would it really matter to me? No. It wouldn't. Again, I do realize that it would matter to a lot of people. But as far as my preferences go, personality is a much bigger deal than anatomy, looks, and sexual attraction.

This is why, on occasion, you'll see couples in the LGBT community who don't ever have sex. Just the same as you might see a straight couple who never have sex. They choose to connect in other ways, or they're simply not sexually attracted to their partner. To some people, sexual arousal really doesn't matter when it comes to having a romantic relationship. But to some people, it does. And that's perfectly fine.

At the end of the day, love is love. The only person you should ever have to prove your love to is the person who feels the same about you. We all deserve the right to love. I think some people need to realize that human rights are not history lessons. They're not speeches, commercials, or campaigns. They are just the choices that everyone has the right to make as human beings. When we are born, we are born with the same human rights as everyone else. I don't see why that should ever change as we grow older, and discover all of the different things that define our relationships with other human beings. As long as your preferences don't put anyone in any sort of direct danger, I don't see why it's an issue.

QUOTE (TargetTango @ Sunday, May 13 2012, 20:38)

The fact that many states are putting same sex marriage to a popular vote is pathetic. The civil rights of minorities should never be put up to popular vote.

This is one of the best points that's ever been made on the political side of things. To be fair, I think the civil rights of anyone should never be put up for popular vote. Minority or otherwise.

This post has been edited by xWH1T30UTx on Sunday, Dec 2 2012, 10:53

[Irviding]

The unfortunate thing is the UKIP holds that belief and is an extreme party over there. Here in the US the GOP holds that belief and is the other mainstream party...

[Melchior]

Something I've been thinking about: does the whole "gay rights" movement sorely fail to undermine heteronormativism? A lot of responses in this topic say "I'm straight but I support gay rights." What this suggests to me is, that people view complementary gender roles and the accompanying heterosexuality as the "correct" way to be, where as gays are people born with an affliction- essentially "men trapped in women's bodies" or some variance of that- rather than individuals who are completely within their rights to be with whomever they please. Because of this prevailing view, gays are treated as a minority ("they're born that way, they can't help it!") who should be given a concession, a special "deviation pass" while bisexuality is ignored and marginalised and the idea that people shouldn't be constrained by monosexuality of either variety is rendered a fringe view, even in LGBT dialogue. So does treating the issue like one of civil rights for minorities rather than one of people being coerced into gender roles by society, not serve to legitimise and strengthen heteronormativism? Should we not make any distinction at all between heterosexuality and homosexuality as identities, shouldn't those terms just be adjectives describing actions?

[sivispacem]

I disagree. It's like saying you support equal rights for women or minorities- you are distinguishing yourself from them by indicating you don't share a characteristic, but nothing about the statement normalises one or t'other.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 05:12)

I disagree. It's like saying you support equal rights for women or minorities- you are distinguishing yourself from them by indicating you don't share a characteristic, but nothing about the statement normalises one or t'other.

But if we want to contribute to social justice-driven dialogue, we bear a huge responsibility to make sure nothing we say is at all harmful. For instance "I disagree with discrimination against same-sex couples" or "I support same-sex marriage" would be fine but doesn't any talk that treats gay people like they are a civil minority, distinguishable from the majority, simply legitimise heterosexuality and conventional gender roles' status as the norm?

Do you understand my point that a lot of the dialogue surrounding the issue seems to come from a point of view accepts that complementary gender roles and heterosexuality are the norm, and that a concession should be made for the deviant minority, at least partly because they "can't help it"? Would it not be more helpful to advocate eliminating heteronormativism, ie, allowing people to engage in sex or relationships with people of either gender, without their status as deviants being explicitly pointed out?

[finn4life]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 06:36)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 05:12) I disagree. It's like saying you support equal rights for women or minorities- you are distinguishing yourself from them by indicating you don't share a characteristic, but nothing about the statement normalises one or t'other. But if we want to contribute to social justice-driven dialogue, we bear a huge responsibility to make sure nothing we say is at all harmful. For instance "I disagree with discrimination against same-sex couples" or "I support same-sex marriage" would be fine but doesn't any talk that treats gay people like they are a civil minority, distinguishable from the majority, simply legitimise heterosexuality and conventional gender roles' status as the norm? Do you understand my point that a lot of the dialogue surrounding the issue seems to come from a point of view accepts that complementary gender roles and heterosexuality are the norm, and that a concession should be made for the deviant minority, at least partly because they "can't help it"? Would it not be more helpful to advocate eliminating heteronormativism, ie, allowing people to engage in sex or relationships with people of either gender, without their status as deviants being explicitly pointed out?

I see what you're saying, and I think most people think that way when they have known a gay person for a while, for example; My Uncle is technically married (As far as a gay man can marry) and i've known him and his partner since I was born obviously. I don't look at them as gay, weird or anything like that, they're just normal people to me. But occasionally when I meet new people and they're gay I kind of think that way, the whole "Well that was an odd thing to say, but he's gay" sort of plays over my mind from time to time. But it usually disappears. I would like to think most people think similarly to how I do like that.

[Bad.boy!]

QUOTE

Would it not be more helpful to advocate eliminating heteronormativism, ie, allowing people to engage in sex or relationships with people of either gender, without their status as deviants being explicitly pointed out?

You can't just simply change the way society thinks about gays. In the Netherlands teens are taught about gays during sex education and during other "events" (12-18 old). There is even a "gay" day. Dutch gay organizations think that this will stop bullying. But this does not help in making people see gays as normal people. The gay pride in Amsterdam and the media doesn't help this either. How do you think education should be done?


I think that there should be no discrimination against gays whatsoever. But I don't see them as "normal" people and I don't think that is a bad thing. Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal. We are born to be able to reproduce. but when a "gay" is born, it stops. Now you can rant about how there are to many people on earth, but they are born (or developed) like that because something DIFFERENT had happened.
I also disagree with lesbians trying to get children the scientific way. Why? Because there will be even more gays. I wouldn't call this a real bad thing, but if that happens and they get children with non gays (bisexuals), there will be a bigger chance that there are even more gays. And so on. I'm not saying in the future everyone is gay, but it will be a bigger percentage. Also it is not natural. There is (or was) natural selection for a reason.



http://www.wate.com/story/20321670/ut-rese...n-homosexuality
http://sourcefednews.com/theres-no-gay-gene-says-scientists/

[Melchior]

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 09:38)

You can't just simply change the way society thinks about gays. In the Netherlands teens are taught about gays during sex education and during other "events" (12-18 old). There is even a "gay" day. Dutch gay organizations think that this will stop bullying. But this does not help in making people see gays as normal people. The gay pride in Amsterdam and the media doesn't help this either. How do you think education should be done?

I've already explained it. By disassociating the individual from their actions (ie, make "gay" an adjective, not a noun), collectively moving away from the view that heterosexual relationships are "normal" and should be engaged in exclusively and stop purporting the issue of "gay rights" as one of civil rights for an afflicted minority.

QUOTE

Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal. We are born to be able to reproduce. but when a "gay" is born, it stops. Now you can rant about how there are to many people on earth, but they are born (or developed) like that because something DIFFERENT had happened.

So this is your view, even if you don't articulate it as such: "we have a circuit that makes us like women, but gay men are afflicted with a girl's circuit, making them like other guys! poor buggers, hey come on guys, don't discriminate against them!"

QUOTE

I also disagree with lesbians trying to get children the scientific way. Why? Because there will be even more gays. I wouldn't call this a real bad thing, but if that happens and they get children with non gays (bisexuals), there will be a bigger chance that there are even more gays. And so on. I'm not saying in the future everyone is gay, but it will be a bigger percentage. Also it is not natural. There is (or was) natural selection for a reason.

what is this i don't even

[Ziggy455]

QUOTE

But I don't see them as "normal" people and I don't think that is a bad thing. Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal.

What makes nature? A set of characteristics affiliated with the natural design of something. What makes you think that two guys is not natural? Instead of looking at genders and nature - Look at attraction and nature. Lots of species have same sex relationships. Dolphins have same sex relationships and there isn't an influx of homosexual dolphins floating down the coasts.

There's so many people in this world that no matter what there will be possibilities of sexual intercourse with every preference: Necrophilia, Denderphelia, Homosexuality, Celebicy. The point is you need to find the line that seperates acceptable relations (Homosexuality) as opposed to unacceptable relationships. (Pedophilia. Necrophilia.)

[Bad.boy!]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Jan 8 2013, 04:58)

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 09:38) You can't just simply change the way society thinks about gays. In the Netherlands teens are taught about gays during sex education and during other "events" (12-18 old). There is even a "gay" day. Dutch gay organizations think that this will stop bullying. But this does not help in making people see gays as normal people. The gay pride in Amsterdam and the media doesn't help this either. How do you think education should be done? I've already explained it. By disassociating the individual from their actions (ie, make "gay" an adjective, not a noun), collectively moving away from the view that heterosexual relationships are "normal" and should be engaged in exclusively and stop purporting the issue of "gay rights" as one of civil rights for an afflicted minority.

That's nice and all, but it's not possible to change the way people think about gays.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Jan 8 2013, 04:58)

QUOTE Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal. We are born to be able to reproduce. but when a "gay" is born, it stops. Now you can rant about how there are to many people on earth, but they are born (or developed) like that because something DIFFERENT had happened. So this is your view, even if you don't articulate it as such: "we have a circuit that makes us like women, but gay men are afflicted with a girl's circuit, making them like other guys! poor buggers, hey come on guys, don't discriminate against them!"

I don't really follow your (or mine as you put it) circuit logic there. And I never sad that we should pity gays. I'm just saying that I disagree with "f*ck the norm, being attracted to something/nothing/multiple things is the norm now". The norm is for me what is natural and that is straight imo.

QUOTE (Ziggy455 @ Jan 8 2013, 14:46)

QUOTE But I don't see them as "normal" people and I don't think that is a bad thing. Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal. What makes nature? A set of characteristics affiliated with the natural design of something. What makes you think that two guys is not natural? Instead of looking at genders and nature - Look at attraction and nature. Lots of species have same sex relationships. Dolphins have same sex relationships and there isn't an influx of homosexual dolphins floating down the coasts.

QUOTE

A homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. - Levay, Simon, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality

Natural for me is what humans or any species is designed to do. For some reason trough natural selection it was best for humans to reproduce through sex. Now with homosexuality you have sex with the same gender, and I see that as a step backwards. Instead of moving forward. If you actually can call it a step since live ends there.

[Lightning Strike]

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)

That's nice and all, but it's not possible to change the way people think about gays.

Really ? I'd debate that twenty times over since it's something called an opinion and they're always capable of changing.

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)

I don't really follow your (or mine as you put it) circuit logic there. And I never sad that we should pity gays. I'm just saying that I disagree with "f*ck the norm, being attracted to something/nothing/multiple things is the norm now". The norm is for me what is natural and that is straight imo.

That's great, but you're not following the facts and the facts state that Homosexuality is natural, it's found all over nature and it's not a category that we as human beings fall exclusively into. You can think what you want about what is and isn't natural but thinking doesn't do too well when it's put up against fact.

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)

Natural for me is what humans or any species is designed to do. For some reason trough natural selection it was best for humans to reproduce through sex. Now with homosexuality you have sex with the same gender, and I see that as a step backwards. Instead of moving forward. If you actually can call it a step since live ends there.

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.

: Present in or produced by nature - I see homosexual creatures in nearly every species of animal on this planet so I think you're going to have to change your perception of what natural means.