No One Is Born Gay!!!!

[One Above All]

If someone were to tell me they were gay, I'd believe them and be willing to place that label on them if they desired so, howeva, if that person said they were a gay virgin, I'd find such a statent to be odd and a mit oxymoronic (for lack of a better description). To me, this person is no more gay than the person with a strong sensitivity for the plight of the needy and intends to feed and clothe them, but never gets around to it or even attempting it is a philantropist.

False analogy. Sexual attraction does not require sexual activity.
EDIT: Just so you can understand:
If you had sex
Before you actually did it, were you not aroused? Did you not feel sexually attracted to the person you were with?

If you've never had sex
Haven't you ever been aroused?


You don't have to have sex to know what you're attracted to; you need to know what you're attracted to in order to know whom you can have sex with.

[albeto]

I personally wish we didn't feel the need to label or place everyone in boxes all the time. But if we must, shouldn't it be based on the reality of what people do or try to do?

Why?

Division (us vs. them) and other prejudices are often a biproduct of these types of labels.

No, why should sexual identity be based on behavior rather than self-proclaimed identity? 

They shouldn't ulness labels are important to them. If the issue is that of having a label or not having one, a person should evaluate how important and relevant said label is to them and act based on their personal feelings about that label provided of course that no one else is harmed.

You are advocating labeling based on behavior.   What do you see is the perceived value of your labeling system? 

Good and bad are subjective and of little relevance or value in this discussion. I employed the racist scenario to point out the simply idea that all folks should primarily receive treated based what they actually do.
I would argue that oftentimes labels serve no purpose other than providing a title to focus prejudices on.

I agree with you that labels serve the purpose of focusing prejudice by identifying "them" as "good" or "bad."  You are advocating an alternative way of identifying non traditional sexual behavior.  Surely you believe there to be a "good" reason for this.  I'm curious as to what that might be. 

[Truth OT]

TOT, you seem to want people to conform to some notion of behavior so we can easier categorize them. Men who were attracted to men and preferred to have sex with men routinely used to marry women because they were ostracized otherwise. You would say these men were straight. They married women, right? But nearly everyone else would say they were gay and married women only because they were forced to by circumstances.

First off, it is terribly unfair to the party such individuals marry for them to involve themselves in such a relationship.
I'd say that the men in the situation you illustrated shouldn't allow a circumstance force them into doing something they do not want to do. Come out, be you, and deal with the circumstance as best you can while we as members of society work to insure that you are not denied your rights because of a personal, non-malicious choice you have made.

Likewise, men who have always been attracted to women and are married to a woman might find themselves having sex with men in prison. You would say they were gay in jail and straight outside? I have never heard of that kind of categorization.

So, a man who considers himself straight but currently has no female companion, and sells his body to men as a prostitute is now gay? He does not like sex with men but will fake it for money.  I know of women who are lesbians but who worked as prostitutes, selling their services to men-- to support their female partner and their kids. They do not like men, but are willing to fake it for money.

What about porn actors who have sex with whoever the script calls for. Are they bi, straight or gay? Suppose they don't really want to have sex with anyone but only do it for the pay. They are asexual although having sex all the time!

If a man considers himself straight, but engages in homosexual activity of his own volition, he's delusional! The male prostitute is gay, period. There's no other way of looking at it. (for the sake of this discussion bisexual = gay).
It is terribly unfair to equate a person that is sexually assaulted with a person who makes a conscious decision to engage in sexual activity for personal profit.

It seems we have to look at who people are with when they are not being forced or paid. And the relationship may or may not be sexual, but it is who they want to be with emotionally. Like a couple where one becomes disabled or when they become very old. They are no longer having sex, they have not become asexual because they are still attracted to their partner. That is their actual preference, based on their natural orientation.

Being involved emotionally and being involved physically (e.i. sexually) are not the same. Does one increase the likelihood of the other? Yes, but the two can be mutually exclusive. I would argue that it is not reasonable and frankly would be stupid to classify someone as either emotionally hetero or homosexual.

[Alzael]

Maybe I am too eager to remove the grey areas people like to hide out in for whatever noncommittal reasons they have............

Yes, because it couldn't be because the world is actually a complex thing.

No, Truth, clearly it's because everyone else just likes to hide in the grey areas and is non-committal.

The reasons behind a person's actions are almost always significantly less consequential than the actions themselves. I judge primarily by actions with ancillary consideration given to the motives behind those actions understanding that in rare scenarios the motives my trump the action.

No, Truth. You think they are. There's a difference. You have yet to actually justify this viewpoint with anything besides an assertion that it's how you think things should be. You want to completely ignore all of the complexity that occurs in the real human mind and in the real world and stamp it with a sticker into easy categories for no other reason than it seems to make your head hurt to consider that people aren't one dimensional entities that can be summed up simply.

Please show me the bigotry that you claim.

I already mentioned it. When I pointed out that your idea is essentially the same as telling people that there is a certain way to be black. Don't you consider it more than a little bigoted to tell people that are born to be a certain way that they have to act like it, in order to be considered what they are?

I would also point out again, that your labelling system is essentially arbitrary and needlessy complex.

[Truth OT]

I agree with you that labels serve the purpose of focusing prejudice by identifying "them" as "good" or "bad."  You are advocating an alternative way of identifying non traditional sexual behavior.  Surely you believe there to be a "good" reason for this.  I'm curious as to what that might be. 

I am arguing that if we are to label at all, we should label everyone including those that employ "traditional" sexual behavior and we should label based on what each person has done or currently practices, whatever's most relevant at the time.
My hope is that by having people focus on the time wasting practice of having to label everyone, that people will realize how silly, irrelevant, and ultimately unproductive the practice can be in hopes that such walls will eventually be torn down.

[One Above All]

<snip>

Suggest a poorly designed labeling system in the hopes that instead of going back to the old (better) one, people will just give up labels altogether?
Not gonna happen. We will always label ourselves and/or others.

[Truth OT]

I already mentioned it. When I pointed out that your idea is essentially the same as telling people that there is a certain way to be black. Don't you consider it more than a little bigoted to tell people that are born to be a certain way that they have to act like it, in order to be considered what they are?

I don't agree with this analogy at all, but I could be wrong. Please show me how?

These reason I feel the case you make is a faulty and somewhat nonsensical is because:

A. a person's race (not ethnicity) can be immediately known at birth whereas a person's sexual orientation cannot be known and likely only fully develops sometimes after birth and can be influenced by hormonal factors as well as environmental factors. Race cannot be influenced by any external factor.

B. You base it on the assumption that a person's sexual orientation has been fully determined by birth with no evidence to support your claim.

C. By inference you have declared that one can in essense fake being black as if acting a certain way will be able to convince onlookers that the person who acts in a certain manner is black, despite them having pasty skin (non-albino), blue eyes, blonde hair, small lips, a pointy nose, and a flat behind.

I'll readily admit that sexual orientation (sexual desire/preference/fetish) has a great influence on one's sexuality, but it should not always be considered the same as one's actual sexuality (sexual behavior) unless one acts upon that orientation.

[Truth OT]

<snip>

Suggest a poorly designed labeling system in the hopes that instead of going back to the old (better) one, people will just give up labels altogether?
Not gonna happen. We will always label ourselves and/or others.

Kinda, but not quite. My hope was that we would see that the prevailing system has issues and is not a good tool as it stands and that rather than simply amending it, we should consider letting go of the need to label individuals sexually for nonmedical reasons entirely.

[One Above All]

I'll readily admit that sexual orientation (sexual desire/preference/fetish) has a great influence on one's sexuality, but it should not always be considered the same as one's actual sexuality (sexual behavior) unless one acts upon that orientation.

Now I see what the issue is. You redefined sexuality. Sexuality and sexual orientation (as defined in the dictionaries) are one and the same. You defined sexuality as sexual behaviour.

[One Above All]

Kinda, but not quite. My hope was that we would see that the prevailing system has issues and is not a good tool as it stands and that rather than simply amending it, we should consider letting go of the need to label individuals sexually for nonmedical reasons entirely.

To show that the prevailing system has issues, you'd have a much better case if you'd actually use said system and showed its flaws.
Post scriptum: Some of us like our sexual labels.

[Truth OT]

Post scriptum: Some of us like our sexual labels.

Not a huge fan of labels myself though as I see them as a means by which inequality can be fostered. That is why many people in the black community feel that giving our kids less "ethnic" names will benefit them because when they submit employment resumes they will stand less of a chance of being identified as black that someone that has an "ethnic" name.

Sometimes having a label attached to you can work to your detriment, so I make it a point to try to not fit into many perverbial boxes.

[Ambivalent]

 

As I read the above quote in another thread and it made me want to ask why anyone believes that sexuality is anything but a personal choice. Maybe I am missing something, but saying that someone is born gay or even born straight is a lot like saying that people are born into sin. How does "Original Sexuality" sound anymore reasonable to someone than does "Original Sin?"

When you change something from "choice" to "lack of choice" it tends to make it seem more valid. When it comes to protecting homosexual/asexual/transgender/two-spirited/bisexual rights, arguing that it's part of who the person is tend to suit well with society's long taught perspectives on simply "being yourself." One can't choose to be black, white, or asian. They are born this way. And they should celebrate their differences. One isn't born right handed or left handed either.  When it becomes less about choice and more about who you are, people tend to back down and respect it more. In the same way race applies, why would any homosexual/asexual/transgender/two-spirited/bisexual not celebrate themselves?

Now, when you speak of engaging in the act of love or making it, yes, one can choose to do that. But when you look at someone of the opposing gender, do you "choose" that feeling in your stomach? You just chemically found someone attractive - it was beyond you.

Here are some questions I have.

1. If you are a virgin, how can you be considered either gay or straight?

Why does the act of sex have to decide it? You have a crush when you are younger, do you not? You may not always act on it.  But being attracted and not acting on it doesn't mean you aren't gay or straight.

2. Why do otherwise reasonable people equate sexuality with race as if it is an apples to apples comparison?

It's not a choice. So it's like race. Again, you can't choose to be black, white, or asian. And in many cases, race in the past caused a lot of discrimination. People were beat up. People were separated. Same thing often happens to homosexual/asexual/transgender/two-spirited/bisexual people. Also, acknowledging the similarities helps support the argument against sexuality based discrimination. It's in our heads that racism is wrong and to accept it as right is horrific. If we equate sexuality with it, people will start seeing discrimination and hate towards it as wrong in the same manner.

3. How is heterosexuality any more or less of a choice than homosexuality?

It's not.

4. Why does it seem like people want to caste sexuality as a lifestyle as opposed to a personal and usually private behavior practiced by consenting adults?

People outsider people who aren't homosexual/asexual/transgender/two-spirited/bisexual  have made it into an issue. A person can't freely hold hands with their lover without being discriminated against. It's sort of the backlash against all of those who are opposed. They don't want to be silent any longer. They want equal rights and protection. It never had to be an issue.

[One Above All]

Not a huge fan of labels myself though as I see them as a means by which inequality can be fostered.

That is one of the downsides of labels. I am also not a big fan of most labels, but I think some are helpful.

That is why many people in the black community feel that giving our kids less "ethnic" names will benefit them because when they submit employment resumes they will stand less of a chance of being identified as black that someone that has an "ethnic" name.

I didn't know this.

Sometimes having a label attached to you can work to your detriment, so I make it a point to try to not fit into many perverbial boxes.

I make a point not to care about what other people think of me. Actively trying not to fit into any boxes is just silly, IMO. You're not being yourself, and you're "letting the boxes" run your life.

[Truth OT]

Here are some questions I have.

1. If you are a virgin, how can you be considered either gay or straight?

Why does the act of sex have to decide it? You have a crush when you are younger, do you not? You may not always act on it.  But being attracted and not acting on it doesn't mean you aren't gay or straight.

2. Why do otherwise reasonable people equate sexuality with race as if it is an apples to apples comparison?

It's not a choice. So it's like race. Again, you can't choose to be black, white, or asian. And in many cases, race in the past caused a lot of discrimination. People were beat up. People were separated. Same thing often happens to homosexual/asexual/transgender/two-spirited/bisexual people. Also, acknowledging the similarities helps support the argument against sexuality based discrimination. It's in our heads that racism is wrong and to accept it as right is horrific. If we equate sexuality with it, people will start seeing discrimination and hate towards it as wrong in the same manner.

3. How is heterosexuality any more or less of a choice than homosexuality?

It's not.

4. Why does it seem like people want to caste sexuality as a lifestyle as opposed to a personal and usually private behavior practiced by consenting adults?

People outsider people who aren't homosexual/asexual/transgender/two-spirited/bisexual  have made it into an issue. A person can't freely hold hands with their lover without being discriminated against. It's sort of the backlash against all of those who are opposed. They don't want to be silent any longer. They want equal rights and protection. It never had to be an issue.

Thanks for chiming in Amby!

I wasn't initially clear enough it seems. What I am saying or trying to emphasize it that sexuality and sexual orientation should not be looked at as being synonomous. One has a choice component while the other seems to be derived by more natural means. Because of this, I am saying that it is the act of sex that determines whether one is gay, straight, etc.
There are people that have had crushes on members of both sexes at young ages who have never acted upon the feelings generated by said crushes and theose individuals grew up to then choose one over and lived happy lives without ever acting on their pre-adolecent bisexual impulse. Should such a person be considered bisexual, and if so, why?

Perhaps sexual orientation has SOME similarities with race, but the two are hardly long line parallels. Race cannot be hidden or controlled while one's sexuality can be controlled and one's sexual orientation can be veiled. For those reasons alone, the race comparison is not a good one.

What does two-spirited refer to?
Is it fair to lump transgender in with gay and lesbian?

[Truth OT]

I make a point not to care about what other people think of me. Actively trying not to fit into any boxes is just silly, IMO. You're not being yourself, and you're "letting the boxes" run your life.

In a simple world I would totally agree. But in reality, especially as an adult that has to earn a living an an entreprenuer in my line of work (sales), I have to care what people think of me. The fact is that when we aren't in our comfort zones, our placed of zen, or in our Cheers where everybody knows our names, we often are compelled to the the boxes run our lives. It's a sad reality, but that's our current world...........

[Traveler]

...If someone were to tell me they were gay, I'd believe them and be willing to place that label on them if they desired so, howeva, if that person said they were a gay virgin, I'd find such a statent to be odd and a mit oxymoronic (for lack of a better description). To me, this person is no more gay than the person with a strong sensitivity for the plight of the needy and intends to feed and clothe them, but never gets around to it or even attempting it is a philantropist.

Please show me the bigotry that you claim.

So, you're saying that I wasn't straight until my ex husband and I had sex? That's the most bizarre idea I've ever heard. Any young person who's been dating for ages, but hasn't happened to "go all the way" has no sexual orientation yet? That's bizarre and simply incorrect. Or are you saying that we're all straight unless and until we have gay sex? That's even more bizarre.

[One Above All]

In a simple world I would totally agree. But in reality, especially as an adult that has to earn a living an an entreprenuer in my line of work (sales), I have to care what people think of me. The fact is that when we aren't in our comfort zones, our placed of zen, or in our Cheers where everybody knows our names, we often are compelled to the the boxes run our lives. It's a sad reality, but that's our current world...........

That's what they keep telling me. They also told me I couldn't have a boyfriend and that a god existed and a lot of other things which were wrong.

[One Above All]

<snip>

Traveler, Truth OT has explained that he's redefined sexuality. As (I think) we all know, sexual orientation and sexuality are supposed to be one and the same. However, to Truth OT, sexuality means sexual behaviour. Therein lies the problem that caused this whole mess.

[Truth OT]

...If someone were to tell me they were gay, I'd believe them and be willing to place that label on them if they desired so, howeva, if that person said they were a gay virgin, I'd find such a statent to be odd and a mit oxymoronic (for lack of a better description). To me, this person is no more gay than the person with a strong sensitivity for the plight of the needy and intends to feed and clothe them, but never gets around to it or even attempting it is a philantropist.

Please show me the bigotry that you claim.

So, you're saying that I wasn't straight until my ex husband and I had sex? That's the most bizarre idea I've ever heard. Any young person who's been dating for ages, but hasn't happened to "go all the way" has no sexual orientation yet? That's bizarre and simply incorrect. Or are you saying that we're all straight unless and until we have gay sex? That's even more bizarre.

What does "all the way" have to do with anything? A kiss is sexual, dry humping is a sexual act, any physical sexual act is a sexual act and such acts illustrate the reality of one's sexuality.

And again, sexual orientation and sexuality are not being considered as synonyms here. S.O. is something aquired nonpurposely at a yet indeterminent age while sexuality involves decisions made that are often in response to one's S.O.

[Traveler]

...If someone were to tell me they were gay, I'd believe them and be willing to place that label on them if they desired so, howeva, if that person said they were a gay virgin, I'd find such a statent to be odd and a mit oxymoronic (for lack of a better description). To me, this person is no more gay than the person with a strong sensitivity for the plight of the needy and intends to feed and clothe them, but never gets around to it or even attempting it is a philantropist.

Please show me the bigotry that you claim.

So, you're saying that I wasn't straight until my ex husband and I had sex? That's the most bizarre idea I've ever heard. Any young person who's been dating for ages, but hasn't happened to "go all the way" has no sexual orientation yet? That's bizarre and simply incorrect. Or are you saying that we're all straight unless and until we have gay sex? That's even more bizarre.

What does "all the way" have to do with anything? A kiss is sexual, dry humping is a sexual act, any physical sexual act is a sexual act and such acts illustrate the reality of one's sexuality.

And again, sexual orientation and sexuality are not being considered as synonyms here. S.O. is something aquired nonpurposely at a yet indeterminent age while sexuality involves decisions made that are often in response to one's S.O.

You're the one who said "virgin". Kissing and those other activities you mention have nothing to do with virginity.

[albeto]

I am arguing that if we are to label at all, we should label everyone including those that employ "traditional" sexual behavior and we should label based on what each person has done or currently practices, whatever's most relevant at the time.
My hope is that by having people focus on the time wasting practice of having to label everyone, that people will realize how silly, irrelevant, and ultimately unproductive the practice can be in hopes that such walls will eventually be torn down.

Okay.  Not surprisingly, I disagree.  For one thing, there's no way this idea will take off, resulting in an entire society throwing up their hands in frustration over the confusion of it all and deciding that labels are no longer worth while.  For another thing, labels exist because they're helpful.  My son can find others who have more familiar experiences of life by finding others who are labeled "Asperger's."  He can find other potential friendships by finding those in his age range who identify as "atheists." If he wants to find "anti-theists" to surround himself with, he can be assured no one will try to coerce him to mind his manners when discussing the detrimental aspects of religion.  I have a nice pink symbol under my avi to label me publicly as a woman.  Why?  No reason other than, that's who I am and it makes a difference to me.  Why should people give up their identity because the labels have historically been used to ostracize people?  Change the image, I say, embrace who you are and challenge prejudice so the next generation has the benefit of being free. 

[free]

or straight, or sinful, etc............... (I was gonna title this thread human sexuality, but I decided upon this title instead beacuse I thought it would be more of an attention grabber).
Sorry kcrady for using your words to start a thread w/o your permission, but they sparked back to life a dormant thought at rest in my mind.

The people on the other side of the gay rights issue think homosexuality is "an opinion and/or a thought," i.e., a choice, and if gays would only accept Jesus as their personal Lord an' Savior, why, they could be good heterosexuals like the rest of us.

 As I read the above quote in another thread and it made me want to ask why anyone believes that sexuality is anything but a personal choice. Maybe I am missing something, but saying that someone is born gay or even born straight is a lot like saying that people are born into sin. How does "Original Sexuality" sound anymore reasonable to someone than does "Original Sin?"

Here are some questions I have.

1. If you are a virgin, how can you be considered either gay or straight?
2. Why do otherwise reasonable people equate sexuality with race as if it is an apples to apples comparison?
3. How is heterosexuality any more or less of a choice than homosexuality?
4. Why does it seem like people want to caste sexuality as a lifestyle as opposed to a personal and usually private behavior practiced by consenting adults?

By this logic, and I (somewhat) agree, you're right, no one is born gay.  No one can be described as anything until they're old enough to understand it on their own.  There are no liberal babies, no secular humanist babies, no straight babies, no gay babies, no religious babies.....


Edit: (and my point is ) and yet we describe our infants as Christians, Muslims and Jews..

[Chronos]

The forum is growing up. This is a much calmer discussion than previous discussions about environmentally gay teachers wearing bikinis and serving roasted tree bark at dinner parties.

* Chronos goes back into the hallway and closes the door.

[Ambivalent]

Thanks for chiming in Amby!

I wasn't initially clear enough it seems. What I am saying or trying to emphasize it that sexuality and sexual orientation should not be looked at as being synonomous. One has a choice component while the other seems to be derived by more natural means.

Your topic is a bit confusing to me but regardless, are you stating that in order for one to claim themselves of a certain sexuality,  they would have to engage in sexual acts?

For clarification purposes, I quickly consulted dictionary.com;

sex·u·al·i·ty
noun
1.
sexual  character; possession of the structural and functional traits of sex.
2.
recognition of or emphasis upon sexual  matters.
3.
involvement in sexual activity.
4.
an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.

Sexual orientation

noun
one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

It would seem that even the dictionary lumps these two together. I believe I somewhat comprehend what you are trying to say. Somewhat. And judging from your response, you seem to strongly oppose labels. But if one has a natural tendency to "crush" on a same-sex member, what does the sex component matter?


 

Because of this, I am saying that it is the act of sex that determines whether one is gay, straight, etc.
There are people that have had crushes on members of both sexes at young ages who have never acted upon the feelings generated by said crushes and those individuals grew up to then choose one over and lived happy lives without ever acting on their pre-adolecent bisexual impulse. Should such a person be considered bisexual, and if so, why?

If they were really crushing then I should assume technically, yes. Regardless of if they desired acting on it or not. Sexuality can include sex, but it doesn't have to. I understand that many homosexual/bisexual people use sex as a means to promote their orientation. (The gay pride parade.) There are many who do not and shy away from such things. Even if someone was say, straight, but engaged in the act of sex with say a same sex member - I wouldn't sum them up as homosexual or bisexual.

Perhaps sexual orientation has SOME similarities with race, but the two are hardly long line parallels. Race cannot be hidden or controlled while one's sexuality can be controlled and one's sexual orientation can be veiled.

Sexuality CAN be controlled, but in a love context not really; as sex in general seems to be a huge part of being a human being both culturally and biologically. And ones race can technically be veiled as well.  But people with a race aren't expected to veil themselves anymore -- why should someone choose to veil themselves? I doubt that choice would even exist if society's views were different.

For those reasons alone, the race comparison is not a good one.

I do disagree, but would a reference to left-handed people be a good comparison? Here is something in which sexuality has quite a bit in common with. Left handedness was not a choice. People were forced to 'hide' it when it was considered 'evil'. In some cases, people were harmed for simply being left handed. (And again, much of this discrimination was because of religion.)  One could CHOOSE to engage in right handedness but we eventually learned no such choice is needed.  Left handedness has actually become sort of a 'label' in itself, where some people will even place up magnets or signs detailing their pride in being left handed or listing off famous left handed people.

What does two-spirited refer to?

Sorry, perhaps this is used more in Canada? It's a description of Indigenous North Americans/ Canadian First Nations who use any of the many mixed gender roles found in these groups originally.  There has been many two spirited people in many Native tribes. I guess it roughly reflects (for example) believing a male spirit resided in a female body. (One example, there are many more!)

Is it fair to lump transgender in with gay and lesbian?

Again, similar to a gay or lesbian and many stand by them. (Not all.) They are equally as discriminated against and are known to form 'alliances' with the homosexual/bisexual/two spirited communities. I'd say it's somewhat fair.

[nogodsforme]

TOT, Many kids experiment (playing doctor, etc.) with their same sex friends long before they even know what sex is. And many adolescents have same sex crushes. Most of these kids are heterosexual. They were attached to the same sex because that is who was around most of the time and it was a developmental stage.

Would you say that these kids were all gay and then "became" straight? How and why would that happen? And the gay kids who experiment with the opposite sex in high school because that is what is expected-- they are straight in high school and later "become" gay? Again, how and why would that happen?

A lot of gay people say that they knew they were gay as young kids, before they even had a name for it. And thought they were the only ones because they did not have gay people around as role models. So they imitated being straight, knowing it did not feel right, but not knowing any alternative. Are you arguing that they are really straight, regardless of what they think and feel, because they are imitating the behavior that is most accepted?

I hear a subtext in your comments: that you, as a straight man, would never do anything remotely "gay" because that would immediately "turn you gay". Like you would not participate in any same sex stuff if you were in prison because only gay men do that. And you can't imagine "being gay for pay" like porn stars or prostitutes. If they have gay sex often, they are gay. Case closed.

It seems that you think sexuality is way more flexible than it is.  People can bounce between gay and straight depending on the circumstances. But you admit that the gay men who marry women for social reasons are being unfair to the women. Why is it unfair if they just "switched" to straight? Because they actually would prefer to be with men, and are not really attracted to women? According to you, that does not matter because they are having straight sex with a woman. Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are not closeted gays, they are perfectly straight guys, because most of the time they are having sex with their wives.....

[Truth OT]

I hear a subtext in your comments: that you, as a straight man, would never do anything remotely "gay" because that would immediately "turn you gay". Like you would not participate in any same sex stuff if you were in prison because only gay men do that. And you can't imagine "being gay for pay" like porn stars or prostitutes. If they have gay sex often, they are gay. Case closed.

It seems that you think sexuality is way more flexible than it is.  People can bounce between gay and straight depending on the circumstances. But you admit that the gay men who marry women for social reasons are being unfair to the women. Why is it unfair if they just "switched" to straight? Because they actually would prefer to be with men, and are not really attracted to women? According to you, that does not matter because they are having straight sex with a woman. Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are not closeted gays, they are perfectly straight guys, because most of the time they are having sex with their wives.....

You hear that because?
Judging from what you wrote above in response to the things I have said and apparently moreso in response to things I never said, I am led to conclude that that you must want to "hear" that! It seems that you feel that anyone that asks the questions ToT asks and questions people's perceptions and definitions the wat he does must be a bigoted ignoramus. 

As far as me thinking sexuality is flexible, quite obviously based on what I have written and repeated I do believe that to be the case. People can and do bounce between sexual practices. There have been people that were straight their entire lives who for whatever reason had a change of heart and decided that the straight life was not for them. There have also been gay people that have made the same type of change.
I problem I see that perhaps some are blind to is that in many cases, sexuality and even sexual orientation has proven to be something that can be changed. Refusing to recongize that SOMETIMES this indeed is the case is every bit as wrong and prejudiced as believing that nature has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

When someone make a committment or vow to a person that they know in their heart they as unsure of and perhaps don't mean, and as a result of that someone else pledges to intertwine their lives with the people based on a promise that was at worst a blatent lie and at best, ill-conceived; I'd say that constitutes being unfair as well as ethically questionable.

TOT, Many kids experiment (playing doctor, etc.) with their same sex friends long before they even know what sex is. And many adolescents have same sex crushes. Most of these kids are heterosexual. They were attached to the same sex because that is who was around most of the time and it was a developmental stage.

How do you know and why do you assume that to be the case?

Would you say that these kids were all gay and then "became" straight? How and why would that happen? And the gay kids who experiment with the opposite sex in high school because that is what is expected-- they are straight in high school and later "become" gay? Again, how and why would that happen?

A lot of gay people say that they knew they were gay as young kids, before they even had a name for it. And thought they were the only ones because they did not have gay people around as role models. So they imitated being straight, knowing it did not feel right, but not knowing any alternative. Are you arguing that they are really straight, regardless of what they think and feel, because they are imitating the behavior that is most accepted?

I could say nothing about what those hypothetical kids were unless I knew what they did. If they experimented sexually with boys as well as girls then quite obviously I would say they behaved in a bisexual manner and were therefore bisexuals (during the time they participated in bisexual activities).
Of course a lot of gay people knew that they would be gay at very young ages, I do not debate that. What I ask is, why the apparent desire to want people to have a static sexual orientation aquired at birth that cannot be changed? I don't get it. People can be dynamic with most aspects of their lives, why prohibit sexuality and sexual orientation from being among those aspects? My argument is that the reality of the situation is that if a person is engaging in sex exclusively with persons of the opposite sex then they are straight as long as that pattern continues. That does not mean that they have no gay desires, nor does it mean that they would not prefer being in a homosexual relationship, but the fact of the matter is that in the scenario you describe, they are NOT (even if the not really is more of a not yet).

-----
It seems that many define homosexual as being someone that desires the sexual companionship of a member of the same sex, whereas what I am declaring is that a homosexual is someone that not only desires same sex companionship, but also acts on that desire.

[One Above All]

It seems that many define homosexual as being someone that desires the sexual companionship of a member of the same sex, whereas what I am declaring is that a homosexual is someone that not only desires same sex companionship, but also acts on that desire.

The problem is that the former is the actual definition, while the latter is just your flawed[1] perspective. By that logic anyone could win any argument by redefining the terms they're using.[2]

1.	Its flaws have been pointed out throughout the thread, but you seem to keep ignoring them.
2.	I'm 99% sure that this has a specific name, but I can't remember it.

[nogodsforme]

I guess, then, TOT, you would agree with president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he states that there are no homosexuals in Iran.....

As long as nobody is doing the nasty gay-style, there are no gays. If a bunch of young people commit suicide around high school age when they start to think they are gay and realize being gay is illegal and punishable by execution, that is immaterial. They never did any gay sexual activity. There are no gays in Iran.

I am probably not alone in thinking that there must be a reason why you are so adamant about gayness or straightness being all about the sex act itself. That way, no matter how much a man might think about other men sexually, or look at gay porn or fantasize about other men, as long as he does not do the deed, he's not actually gay. 

It is still unclear to me what problem you have with a gay man marrying a woman and having sex with her. Since he is having sex with her, doesn't that make him straight according to your definition? So what if he has to think about Brad Pitt to do it with her-- what he thinks is not important. He is doing the deed hetero-style, which makes him a straight married man. Isn't that what you are saying? So what is the problem?

And I think most kids who play doctor and have crushes on their best friends or favorite teachers are straight because, AFAIK most people are straight. 

[Truth OT]

It is still unclear to me what problem you have with a gay man marrying a woman and having sex with her. Since he is having sex with her, doesn't that make him straight according to your definition? So what if he has to think about Brad Pitt to do it with her-- what he thinks is not important. He is doing the deed hetero-style, which makes him a straight married man. Isn't that what you are saying? So what is the problem?

NG, you can't be serious with this can you? How would you feel if your significant other was fanticizing about or preferred being with any other person aside from yourself? Such a person would not be worthy of being the recipient of my loving touch.