Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[The last sane person]

What can you expect? He's Vulcan. Anyways...I'm strange. I've given up trying to have relations with men for anything other than physical dilliances. I find it very very hard to get attached to any man. Though, admitedly its pretty hard for me to get attached to anyone....It's easier for me to get attached to my female partners. Which is quite annoying.

[Rían]

Lotesse - do you have any response to my posts #150 and #113, which were in response to some things you posted?

Maggie - yes, I see what you're saying. Maybe the best solution is to say that everyone is just sexual! (but maybe there are some people that aren't ... ) And I like how you point out the importance of the person involved. I think sometimes with all the throwing around of terms, the sex part gets more weight than it has in reality.

[Lotesse]

Rian - No, not right now. I do not like to argue pointlessly and relentlessly in sensitive threads like this one here. It always discolours my day and makes me feel icky. Not only that, but if I had anything to say to these old posts, Rian, I would have responded to them right after you posted them, not days later in retrospect. So, nope.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

WHAT?! Spock. ..... is so personal yet affects so many of us bisexual human beings. Please, Spock, try and be a little more sensitive in the future, will ya?

Lotesse and LSP

...sigh... This is another case of ."Shaka, when the walls fell."

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).

Rembember, everyone, WE are friends, but others can drop in, so guard public postings accordingly.

[The last sane person]

That is true, and another reason I never fully reveal things on a chatboard....Anyways....yeah, I'm out of this thread for a bit.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

You're on the wrong forum Toby. Go to the top and click on 'Entmoot' or 'Other Topics'.

And, to be on topic...

Nowhere have I ever heard a definition of bi-sexuality that said a person had to be equally attracted to both genders.

I don't think there is a good way to define what being Bi is. It is a much fuzzier concept than either homo or hetero sexuality.

From my personal experience:

I'm in a relationship with a female, so technically I could say that I am homo-sexual.
But I was in a relationship with a male, and while I was with him I felt genuinely attracted to him and during that time I did still identify myself as straight.

But now, if I identified myself as either straight or lesbian it would deny the validity of the excluded relationship which wouldn't be right, because the attraction for the male was real and my attraction to my current partner is real. And if I see an attractive member of either gender I take notice. Therefore I identify myself as bi.

This doesn't prove anything except for myself, but it hopefully makes a bit of sense.

I ask you, all of you, how is this here revealing oneself too much online? I don't understand, this time. I don't understand Spock, that is. This is NOTHING! We are all internet friends here, right? And no one is directly involved with another's Real Life here, right? So what's the big deal about sharing? And this is SO friggin' tame, here, what she's shared! I mean, I have shared all KINDS of crazy stuff with you guys here in the safety of our internet forum Entmoot, and no one tries to make ME feel weird for opening up! At least, if they know better they don't...

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Spock

Discussing is fine and debating is fine.

That's what she was DOING, Spock!!! Sharing a personal perspective for the sake of DISCUSSION and to aid a point in DEBATE! She has a very valid personal first-hand experience to share in order to back up a point of discussion, about being bisexual! .

[Spock]

...ahhhhhh the voice of restraint and reason.........

[The last sane person]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Actually, Islam only stipulates that men and women dress modestly. It doesn't have to be a specific type of modest clothing.

Burkas and such were a cultural addition after the creation of Islam (by the Persians, I think).

I wonder if there's any mention of homosexuality in the Qu'ran? (<- so as to attempt to be on topic. )

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!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

A person can be "homosexual" in the sense of finding sexual relationships with the same sex person desireable, but "heterosexual" in the sense of they, personally, think that husband/wife sex is the right way to go for them and they choose to feed that urge and starve the homosexual urge.

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.

I think their ACTIONS define them more than their urges.

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? 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 don't think it's right for other people to say, "You have homosexual urges, therefore you ARE a homosexual and MUST ACT on those urges!"

Well of course not. Who said that? 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?

Just like I have desires, sometimes, to try sex with other men, that doesn't DEFINE my actions - BECAUSE I think it's right for me to only have sex with my husband (and luckily I enjoy it tremendously! ) I don't let those desires DEFINE my actions.

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.

My guess is that you are lumping people that go to Exodus as ALL being ENTIRELY motivated by others, as opposed to personally making that very difficult choice (although certainly EVERYONE considers input from others in most if not all decisions). And I think you're dead wrong.

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?

Do you think that alcoholics should just give in to their urges and drink themselves to death, if they think that's wrong?

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!

Do you think a person who is homosexual in both senses that I described above should stop fighting those urges if THEY, PERSONALLY, by their OWN decision, think they're wrong for them, personally?

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?

[Spock]

U-R-so right LSP.

[Insidious Rex]

Wait bisexuals cant say they are bisexual here in a conversation about the point of view of bisexuals? How is that inapropriate?

[Lotesse]

Awesome post, I. Rex.

[Spock]

never said it, a continuing case of "Shaka, when the walls fell."

----------------------------------
"Callimas at Bahar."

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Wait bisexuals cant say they are bisexual here in a conversation about the point of view of bisexuals? How is that inapropriate?

I KNOW; that's what I was saying! But I'm just being unreasonable and unrestrained and so forth. Thanks for noticing that, I.Rex.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Spock

never said it, a continuing case of "Shaka, when the walls fell."

----------------------------------
"Callimas at Bahar."

love that episode of TNG

[Spock]

LCOU & Spock at Tanagra.





TY

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Rian - No, not right now. I do not like to argue pointlessly and relentlessly in sensitive threads like this one here. It always discolours my day and makes me feel icky. Not only that, but if I had anything to say to these old posts, Rian, I would have responded to them right after you posted them, not days later in retrospect. So, nope.

That "right-wing Christian haters" statement makes me flaming angry, but I'm not going to respond with an angry post. However, I'm not going to ignore it, either, because I think it's critical to examine and challenge statements like that - so I'm going to address it politely but firmly.

It certainly "discolors my day and makes me feel icky" to see such terrible accusations posted (that there are Mooters on this thread that are haters), especially when the poster then declines to back it up, and that's why I'd like to deal with it.

But it's your choice to decline to talk, so ... OK, then, people - I've asked several times, and Lotesse chooses to offer NO data to support her claim that there are "right-wing Christian haters" on this thread.

I think if someone makes a claim like that, that they should at least back it up, but that's up to her, and she's choosing to not back it up. It reminds me of secret trials where the accused isn't even allowed to hear the evidence against them by their accuser, and can't even put up a defense. And I think that saying someone is hateful is about the worst accusation that one person can make against another, IMO, and it should NOT be allowed to stand unchallenged.

I'm really disappointed to see that an accusation like that can be made on this thread, esp. without the person being willing to back it up. I think a BIG part of the good of a thread like this is that we can look at hateful, fearful attitudes that people on both sides might have, and discuss them, and understand each other better, and maybe even dispel some falsehoods. I think it would have done a lot of good to discuss it.

I hope the next time a claim like that is made by ANYONE, towards ANY group of people, on ANY thread, that there will be a general call from all the posters here to stop inflammatory language that isn't even backed up, and to encourage the different sides to try to understand each other and communicate and be friends.

I see and hurt tremendously for the homosexual/bisexual Mooters here when they share their painful experiences. Well, I have some painful experiences, too, in this area - it's TERRIBLY painful to me when a person accuses me (by virtue of merely being in a group - NOT because of anything I, specifically, have done) of being hateful towards homosexuals/bisexuals. (And I'm not saying you did, Lotesse, because you refused to be specific.) It's tremendously painful, because it's so wrong. How would you guys like to be accused of hating people that you didn't hate? Is my pain worth sympathy, too, or do only certain groups get sympathy?


and on another topic - Spock, for what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with what Maggie shared - I thought it was very insightful and expressed well, and I really appreciated it. This thread title is very specific, and I think people would expect posts like that, anyway. I know that I've appreciated any post that is thoughtful and considerate, especially when the poster opens up and shares some personal insights/feelings.

I think a great deal of good has come from this thread.

[Rían]

Good, thoughtful post, IRex (#170). I have to log off now, but I certainly want to respond to it.

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! )

[Spock]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That "right-wing Christian haters" statement makes me flaming angry,

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.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and on another topic - Spock, for what it's worth, ......

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.