bamacheats
YKW = Basilio's Bish
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Messages
- 10,504
- Likes
- 280
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
I've recently had a change if heart on this subject. I work in EMS and we work 24 hour shifts (24 on 48 off). About 6 months ago I transfered to a new shift, so of course I got a new partner. A gay man. So for the last 6 months I've spent 48-72 hours a week with a gay man. I used to be "antigay" but spending so much time with this guy has changed my opinion. He's hands down one of the best guys around. I now consider him to be a friend for life and could honesty care less if he was gay.
Either way moral of this story is that I once asked him if he was born gay or if he chose to be gay. He told me he never chose it. In fact he fought if for over a decade. So if he tells me it wasn't a choice I believe him.
Any consensual form of sexual acts is a choice. You have to make the decision to stick it in a girl's vag or up a dude's bum. Everyone is shaped by their hormone balance and the culture they grow up and live in.
Some "homosexuals" do voluntarily choose to be gay. I have a cousin who will tell you the exact same and he is gay.
I'm not anti-gay in the sense that I don't have any prejudice towards the actual person. I do not condone the actual homosexual actions however. My personal opinion.
Same thing with homosexuals. We are a species of higher reasoning, and KNOW that without the opposite sex, we can't survive as a species. So, if more and more people are supposedly being born gay, does that mean that we are on the way out as a species?? If a woman is REALLY born gay, then the thought of any semen coming near them should be repulsive, and having kids shouldn't be an option to them, correct?? Yet, in Oregon, IIRC, a woman who was a lesbian, had a sex change to become a man, and kept her uterus. Then, when her and her partner discovered that her partner couldn't get pregnant, the woman who became a man got pregnant for them. So, the man in the relationship, who used to be a woman, carried the baby. Confusing, right??
Everything is a choice in life, and some people just choose whatever is easiest for them to live with.
Nobody consciously chooses who they are attracted to; people do consciously choose whether or not they have sex with someone.
Homosexuality (i.e., the sexual attraction to members of the same sex) is definitely not a choice (no more of a choice than heterosexuality). To engage in homosexual actions is a choice.
You cannot be a homosexual, without engaging in homosexual activities. You ever hear of an abstaining homosexual??
Of course you can be and, yes, there are homosexuals who abstain from sex.
If one is sexually attracted to persons of their own sex and gender, they are homosexual. If one is sexually attracted to persons of their opposite sex and gender, they are heterosexual. It is that easy.
Certainly one can choose not to act on their desires; however, why should they have to choose not to act on their desires if in doing so they are not harming anyone else?
Again, without the act, you can't get the label.
It's like trying to say someone is a dopehead without ever touching a drug. This also reminds me of the whole "addictive" personality argument for those who gamble and do drugs. They just like what it does to them, because they are willing to give up everything to do it, and the proof is the destructive path they leave in their way.
Simply because you do not appear as if you are homosexual does not mean that you are not homosexual.
Your analogy is ridiculous for two reasons:
1. Homosexual behavior is not inherently destructive, which you imply by linking it to dopeheads and gamblers on destructive paths.
2. Addictive predispositions are genetic.
Finally, I will pose the following questions:
1. Have you ever been sexually attracted to another man? If yes,
2. Did you then choose against having sex with that man?
3. If the answer to the first question is 'no', then why do you so strongly cling to the conviction that homosexuality (i.e., the sexual attraction to members of your own sex) is a choice?
You want to make this about the act, but if the desire is natural (and not a choice) and the act is consensual (and harms no one), then why would it in any manner be declared wrong?
Nobody consciously chooses who they are attracted to; people do consciously choose whether or not they have sex with someone.
Homosexuality (i.e., the sexual attraction to members of the same sex) is definitely not a choice (no more of a choice than heterosexuality). To engage in homosexual actions is a choice.
Of course you can be and, yes, there are homosexuals who abstain from sex.
If one is sexually attracted to persons of their own sex and gender, they are homosexual. If one is sexually attracted to persons of their opposite sex and gender, they are heterosexual. It is that easy.
Certainly one can choose not to act on their desires; however, why should they have to choose not to act on their desires if in doing so they are not harming anyone else?