Did you choose your sexual orientation?

[cpwill]

I'm not talking about marriage. Just because someone CAN eventually fall in love with someone they live with for dozens of years doesn't mean they chose to fall in love with them.

generally it does; you can always choose to dislike or hate them. I've seen a couple of marriages that work that way time simply tends to deepen the decisions we make, and that includes decisions we make about how we will think about and towards others.

It's something that happens over time. There is no way in hell that someone can just will themselves to fall in love with someone they detest.

i think here we are at cross-communication with terms. "fall in love with someone you detest"? obviously not, first you have to stop detesting them. but you can certainly love someone whose actions you hate.

 

[cpwill]

I don't know what else to say to you. You're not making any sense to me. I guess I just can't grasp the concept of someone actually making themselves feel a certain way.

interesting. you have never been angry with someone and then chosen to forgive them?

Also, how is the time period of four years relevant?

it was just one i picked out of a range. relationships demonstrate recognizable patterns; but they have to have an extended length of time to fully play out.

 

[rivrrat]

generally it does; you can always choose to dislike or hate them. I've seen a couple of marriages that work that way time simply tends to deepen the decisions we make, and that includes decisions we make about how we will think about and towards others.

I don't "choose" to dislike people. Some people are just not likeable.

i think here we are at cross-communication with terms. "fall in love with someone you detest"? obviously not, first you have to stop detesting them. but you can certainly love someone whose actions you hate.

No, I cannot. I cannot choose to love anyone, and I certainly cannot will myself to love someone whom I dislike. I couldn't make myself love Hitler any more than you could. And I sure as **** couldn't make myself sexually attracted to them.

 

[MsCommonSensiality]

interesting. you have never been angry with someone and then chosen to forgive them?
it was just one i picked out of a range. relationships demonstrate recognizable patterns; but they have to have an extended length of time to fully play out.

Been angry and chosen to forgive? Well, yeah, I have. It depends on what the person did, I suppose.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. What I believe is that if there's chemistry between two people, then, that's it, it's there. If it's not...then it's not. I believe in falling in and out of love. Peoples' attitudes, likes and dislikes may vary over time.
I can't imagine wanting to attempt to force myself to be in love with someone over a long period of time. Not if I no longer found them appealing, inside or out.

And no, I've never been in a relationship that lasted years. So, what are you getting at with the patterns?

 

[cpwill]

Been angry and chosen to forgive? Well, yeah, I have.

then on a lesser (or perhaps greater, dependent on the issue) level you have already taken an action of the kind I am describing. you have willfully chosen to show love, to alter your emotional state with reference to another human being.

It depends on what the person did, I suppose.

i don't know; i've sometimes found it easier to forgive people for the big things than the little ones. i think it has more to do with us than with them, as far as the relative difficulty of forgiveness.

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. What I believe is that if there's chemistry between two people, then, that's it, it's there. If it's not...then it's not.

indeed, but you are confusing "chemistry" or "attraction" with "falling in love."

I believe in falling in and out of love. Peoples' attitudes, likes and dislikes may vary over time.

if people are "falling in and out of love" with the kind of ease that riverrat is accusing me of suggesting, then i would suggest they were never truly in love, but rather perhaps in something else. in familiarity + infatuation + in physical attraction, perhaps, but that is not the same. Love does not keep track of wrongs. the "oh we just fell out of love" line is a double tragedy; not only does it produce a divorce - prone society, full of loneliness and cyclic-prone degeneration (is there a social malady that does not effect single-parent children more?), but belief in its' assumptions causes people to devalue themselves.

you, ms common sensiality, deserve better than to have someone merely be tricked or trapped into falling for you because they happen to be predisposed to fall for a set of physical and psychological traits that you happen to exhibit. you deserve someone who knows who you are and chooses you, someone who will always choose you, and someone who loves that they get to choose you.

attraction and chemistry are important; they are what we depend to bring ourselves together, and they are frankly alot of fun. but if you settle for just that then you, madam, are selling yourself short.

And no, I've never been in a relationship that lasted years. So, what are you getting at with the patterns?

i'll go whip out some of my old studies me and my wife did and get back to you

 

[MsCommonSensiality]

then on a lesser (or perhaps greater, dependent on the issue) level you have already taken an action of the kind I am describing. you have willfully chosen to show love, to alter your emotional state with reference to another human being.

i don't know; i've sometimes found it easier to forgive people for the big things than the little ones. i think it has more to do with us than with them, as far as the relative difficulty of forgiveness.

indeed, but you are confusing "chemistry" or "attraction" with "falling in love."

if people are "falling in and out of love" with the kind of ease that riverrat is accusing me of suggesting, then i would suggest they were never truly in love, but rather perhaps in something else. in familiarity + infatuation + in physical attraction, perhaps, but that is not the same. Love does not keep track of wrongs. the "oh we just fell out of love" line is a double tragedy; not only does it produce a divorce - prone society, full of loneliness and cyclic-prone degeneration (is there a social malady that does not effect single-parent children more?), but belief in its' assumptions causes people to devalue themselves.

you, ms common sensiality, deserve better than to have someone merely be tricked or trapped into falling for you because they happen to be predisposed to fall for a set of physical and psychological traits that you happen to exhibit. you deserve someone who knows who you are and chooses you, someone who will always choose you, and someone who loves that they get to choose you.

attraction and chemistry are important; they are what we depend to bring ourselves together, and they are frankly alot of fun. but if you settle for just that then you, madam, are selling yourself short.

i'll go whip out some of my old studies me and my wife did and get back to you

Well, when I forgive someone, it's because my anger has subsided.
And aren't psychological and physical traits all that we are? Our "outer beauty" is our physical traits, while our "inner beauty" is our personality and how we think or talk.
I honestly don't know what else to say. I still believe falling in love is not a choice. We should probably just agree to disagree.

 

[Plato]

I think there is some confusion here. The question asks each of us if we chose our sexual orientation. Many people are answering about other people. That's not the question.

The question is as to whether we chose the sex to which we would feel sexually attracted. Now nine people have answered that yes, they did choose the sex to which they were aqttracted. This is intriguing. These people are saying that they could have chose to be attracted to one gender but in fact chose to be attracted tot he other. I am not really interested in what they think happens to other people. This question is about what heppened in their particularl case.

Now I am one of the nine. I pressed the wrong button. I did not choose.

What about the other eight? Can they explain exactly how they did choose? At what point of their lives? How did the choice go? Did they turn one attraction off and another on? What was their experience? (Not someone they read about)

 

[windovervocalcords]

If you chose your sexual orientation then you had to have started out bisexual, then chose to be hetero or homosexual or to stay bisexual.

 

[Gardener]

You know, one thing I have never understood about these conversations that arise continually is why anybody should really even care. There is nothing to justify here since a situation involving two people having a sexual or romantic relationship does not produce harm by very nature, so why worry whether or not choice is involved at all? There is no actual moral basis against homosexuality, as it is just a simple social taboo with some -- a meme accepted without much question and replicated through social grouping.


The taboos against homosexuality have no more real basis than taboos against wearing white pumps before memorial day, so why even worry to begin with. Whether innate or a product of choice, since there is nothing actually wrong with it, why even worry about "proving" it one way or the other?

 

[CriticalThought]

You know, one thing I have never understood about these conversations that arise continually is why anybody should really even care. There is nothing to justify here since a situation involving two people having a sexual or romantic relationship does not produce harm by very nature, so why worry whether or not choice is involved at all? There is no actual moral basis against homosexuality, as it is just a simple social taboo with some -- a meme accepted without much question and replicated through social grouping.


The taboos against homosexuality have no more real basis than taboos against wearing white pumps before memorial day, so why even worry to begin with. Whether innate or a product of choice, since there is nothing actually wrong with it, why even worry about "proving" it one way or the other?

It goes against the moral feelings of the majority of society, largely as a result of the scriptures of the Bible and a sense of repugnance at the thought of two people of the same sex having sex.

 

[ADK_Forever]

It goes against the moral feelings of the majority of society,

Obviously not, since so many states are seeing attempts to make gay marriage legal.

largely as a result of the scriptures of the Bible

News Flash 1: This country's laws are not based on that factually incorrect book.

News Flash 2: This country was founded on Freedom of Religion", among other ideals. Your religion does not trump any other religion. We all have the right to choose whatever religion we want as well as the right to choose none at all.

and a sense of repugnance at the thought of two people of the same sex having sex.

That only shows an intolerance, and fear, among those who feel this way. I don't have the same feelings for men that gay men have but, I accept that their feelings are real and natural, as in "not a choice".

I've seen hard liners against gay rights soften their stance as soon as they discover someone near them is gay, especially a son or daughter. Even that Constitution hater Dick Cheney was seen to soften his stance against gay marriage because his daughter was gay.

If everyone had a family member who was gay this would not be such a hot issue today.

 

[cpwill]

Obviously not, since so many states are seeing attempts to make gay marriage legal.

obviously so, since every state that has put it to a vote, including our most liberal ones have seen it get shot down in flames. we're up to 31 now, i believe?

 

[ADK_Forever]

obviously so, since every state that has put it to a vote, including our most liberal ones have seen it get shot down in flames. we're up to 31 now, i believe?

Good for you. But, it should be obvious that gay marriage becoming legal is coming. Attempts in 31 states in not a small movement.

It's just a matter of time. As the younger, more open generation become voting age these laws will begin passing.

 

[CriticalThought]

Obviously not, since so many states are seeing attempts to make gay marriage legal.

31 states, including liberal states like California and Maine, have voted against same sex marriage by referendum. In addition, polls indicate that 50% of the country still sees homosexuality as immoral.

News Flash 1: This country's laws are not based on that factually incorrect book.

They are not, but the moral sensibilities of people are and they vote for policy that reflects those moral sensibilities.

News Flash 2: This country was founded on Freedom of Religion", among other ideals. Your religion does not trump any other religion. We all have the right to choose whatever religion we want as well as the right to choose none at all.

The majority of the country are Christians, and so they will vote on Christian ideals. Christianity trumps other religions simply by the numbers in the country.

That only shows an intolerance, and fear, among those who feel this way. I don't have the same feelings for men that gay men have but, I accept that their feelings are real and natural, as in "not a choice".

Indeed, whether or not you view homosexuality as a choice is one of the biggest predictors of whether or not you support same sex marriage. Of course, the majority of Americans still do not see homosexuality as a choice.

 

[ADK_Forever]

The majority of the country are Christians, and so they will vote on Christian ideals. Christianity trumps other religions simply by the numbers in the country.

True. But, more and more "Christians" are seeing the light that discriminating against homosexuality is just plain wrong. Emotions based on fear and anything-different-than-me is not fair and is not moral.

 

[JustineCredible]

I hate when people refer to it as a "lifestyle"

People that are gay can have completely different lifestyles from one another. Saying its a lifestyle choice makes it sounds faddish and elective

GAWDS Thank you!!
I've been arguing against such terminology for decades!

A "lifestyle" is the things and people of who your surround yourself. Your clothes, your car, your career, your choice of restaurants, how you socialize and with whom. Those are the things that make up a "lifestyle."

Not to whom you're attracted!
I don't drive a gay car, I don't have a gay job, I don't wear gay clothes, I don't have gay houseplants or furniture. My friends aren't all gay...they're a mix. My friends aren't all one race or share the same cultural background or even the same education.

My "lifestyle" is that of a newly empty-nest-ed and a happy 40-something female in rural PA who's recently gone back to school...again. (Kinda suck-y on that last one, I'll admit...)

 

[JustineCredible]

The ONLY thing about my sexuality that I actively CHOSE was to stop living as I assumed my peers and/or family wanted and started being honest and open about who I am.

That was the entire extent of my choice on the matter.

 

[MsCommonSensiality]

I love when I run into intelligent people.
Thank you for making my day, ADK.
:2wave:

 

[cpwill]

Good for you. But, it should be obvious that gay marriage becoming legal is coming. Attempts in 31 states in not a small movement.

ummm.... failure 31 out of 31 times and even liberal populaces voting it down? no, it's not obvious to me at all that "it is coming". the "oh well the younger population is more liberal so that's what the majority will be in the future" argument as been the standard line since McGovern. the notion that people become more conservative as they age, work, marry, and have children seems to be beyond some people.

 

[cpwill]

True. But, more and more "Christians" are seeing the light that discriminating against homosexuality is just plain wrong. Emotions based on fear and anything-different-than-me is not fair and is not moral.

:lol: you know, your side would probably be alot more popular (and who knows? perhaps succeed in convincing more people) if you actually bothered to understand why people believed the way they did, instead seeking to assure your self of your own moral superiority by blindly accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of bigotry.

 

[Zinc Route]

I love when I run into intelligent people.
Thank you for making my day, ADK.
:2wave:

**** After it becomes legal in All States - Do YOU think that LAMDA and others should go after certain Religous denominations to make them adhere to the new realities (???)

 

[rivrrat]

**** After it becomes legal in All States - Do YOU think that LAMDA and others should go after certain Religous denominations to make them adhere to the new realities (???)

What 'new realities'? And what does religion have to do with any of it? People don't give a crap what any religious group says, people give a crap if they are given equal rights under our government. Religion is irrelevant.

 

[cpwill]

What 'new realities'? And what does religion have to do with any of it? People don't give a crap what any religious group says, people give a crap if they are given equal rights under our government. Religion is irrelevant.

sadly, the inclinations aren't that this movement is seeking "equal rights"; if that were the case then they would take the equal exercise of rights that are offered in civil unions, powers of attorney, and so forth. their insistence on the NAME 'marriage' seems to indicate that instead what they are demanding is acceptance as an equal alternative. that's a much more difficult thing to give (and it can't be taken); and they will absolutely go after private religious entities for their "discrimination".

don't believe me? go ask California's Mormons.

 

[rivrrat]

sadly, the inclinations aren't that this movement is seeking "equal rights"; if that were the case then they would take the equal exercise of rights that are offered in civil unions, powers of attorney, and so forth. their insistence on the NAME 'marriage' seems to indicate that instead what they are demanding is acceptance as an equal alternative. that's a much more difficult thing to give (and it can't be taken); and they will absolutely go after private religious entities for their "discrimination".

don't believe me? go ask California's Mormons.

Yeah, I know, the whole 'separate but equal' bull****. That isn't equality and there has never been a proposal that gives a "civil union" the exact same rights as marriage. Not a one.

Even if it did, you really think that people are going to CALL it a 'civil union'? No, it would a legal term only. I wouldn't say I'm "civil unioned" to my partner, who the **** would? The term marriage would still be used extensively. So really, y'alls pettiness about a ****ing word is pretty pointless. It's a word, get over it.

And, there is no demand of acceptance. I don't give a flying **** what anyone 'accepts' and no one can make anyone 'accept' anything. All I care about is that equal rights are given, and 'separate but equal' is NOT equal.

All of the numerous churches and what they think are irrelevant when it comes to the law and a legal contractual agreement like marriage.

 

[Zinc Route]

****** I suggest those doubting the idea that Hard Core Gay Rights individuals someday intend to go after the Church's insist upon a straight answer to the question of " In other words it's okay if certain Church's continue to keep their standards & rules" "even if the states permit Same Sex Marriage" ??? Really insist on an answer. Most will not give a satisfactory one. They'll laugh it off or say something offensive - but they will not state that the Church's can continue like they do now.

***** Unitarians. some Episcvopals & some Reformed Jews will cave first on this. Their folding will begin the legal precedent for the rerst to be eventually litigated against.

**** The activists will do this .