Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Lotesse]

At this point, I think it would be wise to explore what each person's definition of "urge" is, and how "urge" is or is not an integral part of what makes a human being unique. This word Urge -

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

It is a generic label and while I understand your point, it wasn't directed at any ONE person. Try to be a bit resilient.

Believe me, I've been trying VERY hard and I'll continue.

You too are jumping like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs .I didn't say what you think I said and am sorry I tried to say it.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, then ... I guess several of us just read it that way.

GTG!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

At this point, I think it would be wise to explore what each person's definition of "urge" is, and how "urge" is or is not an integral part of what makes a human being unique. This word Urge -

good idea - I just popped back for a sec because I liked the defs I found so far...

An impulse that prompts action or effort;

An involuntary tendency to perform a given activity; an instinct;

an instinctive motive;

a strong restless desire;

[Lotesse]

Is being heterosexual an urge, do you think?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

...it wasn't directed at any ONE person...

So a person can feel free to say, for example, that the Democrats on this thread are hateful, moronic imbeciles?

*gives Spock a Calming Cookie*

gtg again!

*whisks off*


(n.b. - The Opinion Expressed about the Democrats on This Thread is NOT the Opinion of the Owner of This Post! )

[The last sane person]

Originally Posted by Spock

U-R-so right LSP.

Forgive me, my senses are frazzled. Was that what you really meant or just sarcasm?

[Spock]

all my efforts seem to be going to naut.............it was a sincere compliment

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sorry for the misunderstanding, then ... I guess several of us just read it that way.

Looks like every single one of us so far. Makes me wonder what exactly he WAS trying to say. I guess we'll never know as is usually the case with these apparent misunderstandings...

I'll just make one quick response - I agree that it's wrong and unhealthy to be in denial. Where we differ, apparently, is this: that you think it's being in denial if you don't accept an urge that you have and act on it if you can. I don't agree - I think being in denial is denying that the urge EXISTS. Not choosing to act on it, IF you see and accept that it EXISTS, is NOT denial, IMO.

Let me know if that makes sense - it was a bit hard to express. (you will prob. still disagree, but that's a different matter! )

No I don’t disagree. But the original program you were promoting declares in its own writings that sexual orientation can be completely “changed� from one to another. That’s not to say that you are giving them the tools to RESIST any homosexual urges (like AA gives alcoholics the tools to resist drinking) but that they are in fact completely “curing� these people of their homosexuality and even going so far as to make them “active functioning and happy� heterosexuals with wives/husbands and kids running around etc. And this strikes me as clear and obvious denial because the approach is not “Im gay help me resist my urges� but instead “Im NOT gay Im NORMAL now! Yeah!� Which is no better then the alcoholic saying Im NOT alcoholic! Im normal now! I can live like everyone else now!

Bad idea…

[The last sane person]

Originally Posted by Spock

all my efforts seem to be going to naut.............it was a sincere compliment

Nah, I thought you meant it. Just checking as my emotions are all over the place today. It was the smilie face that gave it away as sincere. Thanks Spock.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Is being heterosexual an urge, do you think?

in the same way as being homosexual or bisexual, yes, I think it is.

Or to put it another way, I think that the desire for homosexual or bisexual expression is just as real as the desire for heterosexual expression.

I don't particularly like that word "urge", but it's the best I can think of now, and as I look at the definition, actually it seems pretty descriptive. IMO it's important to distinguish between the urge and the act, in order to discuss the issue more accurately.

[Lotesse]

But you use the word "urge" over and over again, in order to (I can only surmise) label non-heterosexuality as a whole. So, homosexuality and bisexuality ought to be just as much an inborn trait as is being born heterosexual. You don't feel an "urge" to be with your husband, or a male, right? It is just a part of who you naturally were born, or are. Such are those of us who are born naturally to be gay or bisexual rather trhan born to be heterosexual. It is no more an urge than it is an urge to be born blonde, but if you were born blonde and society around you insisted it was the "right and normal way" to want to be or strive to be brunette, and there were clubs and focus-groups that helped you in your decision to renounce your blonde-ness and become the right-way brunette, well... is that right?

[Spock]

Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.

[Lotesse]

What?! What does that have to do with anything. Obviously, pain is inevitable and suffering is optional in LIFE, Spock. How does that one-liner have anything to do with the conversation about homo- and bi-sexuality that is going on here? Yet aNOTher one-liner out of nowhere from our resident self-styled cryptic sage.

SO - back to talking about urges and how an urge is or is not separated from an inborn reality.

Rian? back to urges and whatnot - as I was saying, It is no more an urge than it is an urge to be born blonde, but if you were born blonde and society around you insisted it was the "right and normal way" to want to be or strive to be brunette, and there were clubs and focus-groups that helped you in your decision to renounce your blonde-ness and become the right-way brunette, well... is that right?

[Willow Oran]

Discussing is fine and debating is fine. Revealing yourself on a www board is not the best of courses to take. It could have been handled via PM (the more specific details).

Warning duly noted. I'm guessing you were just being a good mod and trying to be protective, yes?

That one couldn't have been handled by pm though. I felt that we were getting too far into theory and stats and whatnot and that a personal perspective would be helpful. Since it apparently has been helpful, I don't feel uncomfortable for having said it.

But thank you for reminding me to be careful. I have been known to be a tad too trusting.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

Just caught this....

WHAT?!?!?!?! Persians had nothing to do with Bur'qas! We have Chadors and scarves, but not Bru'qas! The name itself is Arabic! Persians did not create Islam, they were run over by it.

And as for Homosexuality in the Qu'ran...heahahahahahha! In the same line as the 72 virgin thing, its not just women but young boys offered to the good Muslim! And you think this Catholic Church scandal is something! Pfah! Mullahs give those guys a run to the bank and back!

Sorry, I don't know why I thought Persians invented them. Obviously more research is in order about Islam.

I wasn't implying Persians created Islam though.

Heh, oops.

And about Mullahs... er, yikes?


About the "urge" thing, Dictionary.com defines the noun:
1. The act of urging.
2. A. An impulse that prompts action or effort: suppressed an urge to laugh.
B. An involuntary tendency to perform a given activity; an instinct: “There
is a human urge to clarify, rationalize, justify� (Leonard Bernstein).

And sexuality (n.):
1. The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex.
2. Concern with or interest in sexual activity.
3. Sexual character or potency.

urge =/= sexuality

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

\

I don't think our genitals and what we desire to do with them (and with who) define us, to put it crudely. I think our sexuality is only one part of what makes a person, and we are NOT slaves to the desires it sends up in that area, or any other. I think there is something in every person that is ABOVE our urges in ANY area, and can decide what to do with the urges, and THAT part is the important part in us.

Urges. So we as human beings, according to you, must rise above what makes us uniquely us? And how, how in the world is rising "above" our unique and special selves supposed to be right? We should deny our basic human right to be who we are, who we were born to be? We should deny our own unique sexuality, and why? Because some group somewhere deems it right? What if some powerful group pressured YOU into changing yourself from being heterosexual into being homosexual, and tried to convince YOU that you were wrong to give into your urge to be heterosexual, but that there was help for you, and you could "rise above" being heterosexual?

[Rían]

to finish with IRex's post (the rest will have to wait until tomorrow)...

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I don’t agree. That person would just be a homosexual who is acting like a heterosexual sexually. You can teach a monkey to drive a car but it doesn’t make the monkey human. Actions aren’t a good enough measure to define us.

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree here. I think actions are very defining of who a person is. We could have 2 people who are lazy - one could not fight the urge/desire and remain lazy; the other could fight it and become active and industrious. The two people are NOT both "lazy" - although they both have lazy urges, their actions make them different.

I disagree again. We have all engaged in actions not at all reflective of who we are on an integral level. And some people don’t have sex at all. does that make them not heterosexual or homosexual?

That's why I'm differentiating between urges/desires and actions when we're talking about sexuality. That covers the not-having-sex people.

I think you are comparing things that exist on different levels. You can be gay. You can be white. You can be an alcoholic. Your ACTIONS may not reflect these things at all times but it doesn’t take away from the fact that you ARE these things no matter what you do.

I disagree that you ARE your urges. And I disagree that there is nothing you can do to change it. I guess we'll just have to leave it that we have different opinions here.

But if you have certain urges then it does mean you really should accept that about yourself because that’s simply who you are. And if you refuse and instead choose to be in denial about it that can be pretty unhealthy. Do you not agree?

Who defines what those "certain" urges are? Here are some options:

1. You should act on ANY urge you have or else you're "denying" who you are (I assume you don't think this).

2. You should decide WHICH urges you think you should act on (and here, we would have different categories, based on our personal opinions). This is NOT denying who you are; quite the contrary! It's FACING who you currently are and deciding to try to act in a different manner than what would currently come naturally, as opposed to letting your urges make you their slave.

I think each person should decide for themselves (option 2). Do you?

But the difference is that either way you are heterosexual so it doesn’t really apply. Meanwhile someone who is gay may find absolutely NO attraction to the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite sex. So you are in the highly fortunate position of being able to fall back on having sex with just one guy and being ok with it. They have no such solution.

And in other areas, I have urges that I think are wrong and I try to do opposite because I think it's right, even though I have no desire to do so at the present time. Again, IMO, it boils down to if an individual person thinks something is right, then I hope they would try to do it.

That’s double talk really. How can you “consider input from others� and yet not be influenced by an external source? If some of those people had not grown up with certain parents or in a certain society or under a certain set of religious rules then they would NOT have felt any reason to go try to cure themselves of homosexuality. That’s just how we work. We are a product of our environment. Our current environment sends us the message homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuals are less worthy then heterosexuals. So is it really a surprise some gays are going to be effected by this message?

Oh come now, does our current society unanimously tell us that homomsexuality is wrong? That's FAR from the case now. BOTH sides are influenced by outside sources. BOTH. And hopefully, each person will take that into consideration and try to make their best decision for THEMSELVES.

The only reason I brought up Alcoholics Anonymous is because in that program its very important tenant that you ALWAYS admit to yourself that you ARE an alcoholic and will ALWAYS be an alcoholic. Those people who DON’T admit this to themselves or who keep insisting on saying oh Im not dependent on alcohol Im normal like everyone else tend to have a much harder time dealing with things because they are in denial about reality.

The equivalent would be programs that allow people to ADMIT they are homosexual and then use support groups and techniques to keep them from slipping and having gay sex. NOT saying you are cured! You are now a true heterosexual! Go out and marry and act happy with your wife and kids!

I'll have to read more then, because if they are actually saying people are 100% "cured" in terms of the urge/desire being totally gone, then I would take issue with them (except in the occasional unusual case). If they're using "cured" to mean that a person has changed their urges/desires enough to be able to marry a person of the opposite sex, then I think that's a sloppy use of the word "cured".

Do you think someone who personally thinks eating is wrong for them (anorexia or for whatever reason) should continue to fight these urges because what they BELIEVE is wrong is the most important thing? Lets say they go to a high school where being skinny is highly overvalued and they are told they are worth nothing unless they are bone skinny. And they see their parents and their friends and their society at large favoring their skinnier siblings and they feel real pressure on themselves to meet this ideal so they can feel loved and wanted and normal… And they integrate this psychosis to the point that it DOESN’T seem wrong at all to starve yourself. It seems like you are doing the right and noble thing. Because being fat just seems… wrong… disgusting… sickening. Deep in their heart this is how they feel about it. Would you encourage them to pursue whatever it is they feel is right for them?

This is a good point, IRex, and I've considered it a bit and will continue to consider it. I think what I would honestly do is to tell them WHY I think it is wrong, but when it comes down to it, I think they STILL have to make their own decisions. If you just force them, they can fake it until they're out of the program, and then go right back to the behavior (and btw, this is a good analogy in the sense of there are urges/desires AND behaviors, just like how I think sexuality works - both bi and homo and het). I think although an anorexic will always fight anorexia, still, they can get the urges under control and change over to eating in a healthy manner, IF they become PERSONALLY convinced that anorexia is wrong. Ditto with a homosexual.

Good post, IRex! Lots of thoughtful points.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

We could have 2 people who are lazy - one could not fight the urge/desire and remain lazy; the other could fight it and become active and industrious. The two people are NOT both "lazy" - although they both have lazy urges, their actions make them different.

I disagree. If they are simply fighting their urges to be lazy then they are STILL lazy technically just not acting lazy. That being said I don’t think the term lazy is quite on the same level (grammatically?) as the term gay. Its more like sleepy or happy or something. Gay, on the other hand, is an integral description of who a person is whether they are having sex or not. You can remain a virgin all your life and still be quite gay.

I disagree that you ARE your urges.

But being gay is not just an URGE. Being gay is part of the nature of who you are. Just as being heterosexual is. Or being white. Or being alcoholic etc.

This is NOT denying who you are; quite the contrary! It's FACING who you currently are and deciding to try to act in a different manner than what would currently come naturally, as opposed to letting your urges make you their slave.

This sounds like alcoholics anonymous. This does not sound like what exodus proposes to do.

Furthermore, I think resisting your “natural� urge to drink (if you are an alcoholic) is a necessary evil because alcohol abuse is so bad for you that’s its by far worth the risk of any psychological or physical issues that may come about by resisting what to your body is a natural state. I do not, however, think this applies AT ALL to homosexuality. Of course as a Christian you believe they are sinning and therefore not having gay sex is to their benefit despite the psychological risks of denying their natural urges. That’s where the split occurs.

Oh come now, does our current society unanimously tell us that homomsexuality is wrong? That's FAR from the case

Are you suggesting homosexuality is NOT the target of general derision in our society (and most societies)? That homosexuality is NOT seen as lesser then heterosexuality? If you truly believe this then Id say you live in quite the insulated community. Because in the real world its strikingly obvious. Just look at the whole reaction to the gay marriage topic. It’s the last true bastion of open majority discrimination against a minority group. Or look at the countless examples of gays being bashed and insulted and beat up (some of our mooters even) because of their homosexuality. You don’t see a lot of people getting beat up because they are straight. The fact of the matter is homosexuality is FAR from acceptable to millions of people in our society and that is reflected in how homosexuals are treated and the psychological impact it has on them.

I think although an anorexic will always fight anorexia, still, they can get the urges under control and change over to eating in a healthy manner, IF they become PERSONALLY convinced that anorexia is wrong. Ditto with a homosexual.

But the difference is that if you continue to live like an anorexic eventually it will KILL you. The same with being an alcoholic. The same cannot be said for being a homosexual. Or do you believe that being a homosexual is a fatal disease or disorder? Also, being a homosexual is NOT the equivalent of living in an unhealthy manner. Being a homosexual is simply being a homosexual. Living in an unhealthy manner is independent of your sexual persuasion…

[Spock]

If I may say, w/o being battered; I always associate the term gay with 40's movies and to mean happy. It's sad that I can't use that term today without it having a sexual connotation.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

I have to agree, concerning the term gay. The ubiquitous sexual connotations wouldn't be so bothersome if the word retained the older meaning of 'happy', but now if it isn't used in a sexual sense it's usually used to indicate that something is stupid, or abnormal.
I think the worst part is that perfectly nice people use it as an insult without even thinking about what they're actually saying, even after you've told them that you find it offensive.