A gentleman from my city wrote an interesting letter to the editor in my local paper. He said that homosexuality is a choice, because one can always choose to be asexual. (Abstain from sex).

Yeah, I know, humans are sexual beings, etc., etc. But, you have to admit, this gentleman raises an interesting point.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him (still have to make up my mind). But I was just wondering what you guys think. (Braces in preparation for mass liberal ranting)

Dammit, abgemacht!

This troll is to be ignored, like the other troll(probably the same troll).

Ignore it, and it will go away.

How am I trolling? I'm trying to start an intelligent discussion, and within 45 seconds, both you and abgemacht spoiled it. Awesome.

Anyway, I'll go to bed and see what this thread looks like in the morning. (Winces at the thought)

Then all -sexuality is optional. We don't need sex. We can create humans, sex is now completely useless, except for pleasure (or so I hear, I can't be sure).

@TMW: True, but what fun is being asexual?

Nobody can start a thread without Mapleleaf calling everyone in it a troll, Oh the irony! Cause he's the biggest Troll I've ever known.

@TMW

The definition of a homosexual is someone who is *attracted* to the same sex. So, even if they did not perform sexual acts, they would still, inherently, be homosexual.

Response?

BEING A ASSHOLE IS A CHOICE!

Despite what your common sense may tell you, experts have recently confirmed that those raised by birth to be combative douchbaggy assholiness may still choose to exercise abstention when it comes to being a total f-ing entitled asshole.

Actually killer, you stupid cunt, I target the attention-whore morons, diplomat, TCM, and obiwan. Look at the forum page, you fucking moron. These three jackasses start some inane thread or another every five minutes.

Fuck, you're an idiot.

It can't be THAT tough to figure out. Even fr your stupid ass.

mapleleaf,

learn how to speak properly without using cursewords

you fucking cum guzzling pile of shit

I mean its technically true that you don't have to exercise homosexual desires but the fact is they have these homoerotic desires like heterosexuals ghave their desires. H you can not exercise said desires but nonetheless the desires still remain. That's why concepts such as straight camp are so absurd.

Now my question is, sometimes it seems like (especially women) they suddenly decide they are gay, or more often bisexual. You rarely see this among men (imo because of the kind of sexual contact required by a male homosexual relationship. But sometimes it seems women decide they are bisexual especially famous people, lindsay lohan comes to mind. Do you ever feel some people decide to be gay because, I don't want to say hip...., but they think it makes them cooler. Like I said rarely with men.

Its very demeaning to legitimately gay people who are genetically predisposed to homosexuality (which is what I think the vast majority of gays are). I mean who the hell would choose to be gay in 15th century europe lol

@cent

I'm sure that there are people who chose to have sex with people of the same gender for social/environmental reasons. However, that doesn't mean everyone does. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you'd think it demeaning. The way you describe it, you make it sound like homosexuality is a disability, which it isn't.

I feel people who just decide to be homosexual is somewhat ridiculous and it doesn't help gays further the ideas that homosexuality is not a nurture thing.

I have gay friends I support gay marriage (well really I'm ambivalent) I do not approve of homosexuality though per se. I think its not......I am reluctant to say unnatural but it should never be approved of if you understand what I'm saying. I don't know its very hqrd to expain how I feel about it I'm sorry I can't elaborate and enunciate my thoughts more concisely

From a biological/psychological point of view this is bullshit. Choosing to be abstinent does not change your desires. You cannot choose to be asexual, gay, straight or whatever just like that. What turns you on is a matter of electrochemistry in the brain.

I wonder how long it will take the US to make it into the 21st century.

I can CHOOSE to have sex with a banana but that has about as much relevance as the original question. His logic is retarded, not intelligent.

Oh, ignorance is bliss :)

Of course gays should abstain from sex. This is the solution. Some people abstain from thinking and are doing just fine. Whichever way you look at it, there'll be more blood for everything else. Then we can all be happy vegetables.

I find it amusing how people having problem with gays, who are mostly religious folk (hence not really keen on the whole universe/nature/evolution thing) are so eager to explain that being gay goes against the laws of nature. So does God, remember :P

Plus, have you even seen a dog. Actually, it needs to be at least two dogs, male. They don't really pick, do they - and I'm pretty sure that's nature.

And what exactly is your practical issue with gays. They are our friends, you have to cherish them. Most of them are smarter, better looking, better mannered and better dressed than the average population (funny how this often happens to groups of people subject to persecution). These guys will be top competition if they were into women. You want heaven on earth? Imagine what it would be like for the rest if most of the male population were gay...though, I have to admit, I don't really like Utah or Saudi Arabia :)

Now, when it comes to gay women... I have to admit I have a personal problem with it. These should be converted :P

Good that DJ is not around :)

The whole being asexual argument for all sexual orientation being a choice is defunct when you remember that you cannot suppress the sexual desire for whatever gender gets your jollys ready and rearing. Put a naked woman in a room full of monks that were born chaste and will likely die chaste, and they'll all still be aroused. (Except maybe the ones that are gay, but they'll be aroused by the others being aroused I suppose)

@Mapleleaf: I have started 5 threads in a year. You on the other hand ....

I'm *highly* amused that you're opening this particular can of worms, since you basically proved you had thoughts of this nature in a different thread. Just because you're a big enough idiot to try this again doesn't make those thoughts go away, TMW

Diplomat61, I think mapleleaf might be referring to TMW as he used to be called Diplomat1824.

I guess he has a point in that choosing to live as openly gay is a choice, and choosing to act on your sexual attraction to members of the same sex is ... well a choice. But that only really makes sense if you say that having gay sex is the only thing that defines if you're gay or not, that wanting gay sex doesn't mean you're gay. That seems...kinda silly? It would be like saying, you weren't straight until you were 19 and you were asexual in high school because you never got laid. Plus I don't think celibacy is the same thing as asexuality. Celibacy means abstaining from sex regardless of whether or not you want it, people who identify as asexual will tell you that they don't want it, but some of them actually do have sex, and are therefore not celibate. In short celibacy =/= asexuality. Furthermore, if homosexuality were a choice, what of it? If people actually were choosing to be attracted to other members of the same sex, why does it matter? I see no reason why they should not be allowed to make that choice.
And this seems as good a place as any on this website to say it so here goes: Hell yes California; down with prop 8!

@diplomat61 - spyman is right. Besides, you were told when you chose that moniker.

@ mapleleaf --

Just because you don't agree with a point doesn't make it *retarded*. I'll admit, using an inflammatory statement as the title for this thread may have been an unfair troll move. I never said I agreed or disagreed with the gentleman that wrote the editorial. Therefore, I cannot be held accountable for something I did not write. I can be held accountable for bringing it into the Forum. And, so far, I consider this thread a success. This thread has spawned a handful of insightful, intelligent posts. Unfortunately, it has also spawned a number of unintelligent posts. (mostly from you, mapleleaf)

@ Mafialligator --

Sorry. I did not mean to imply that celibacy = asexuality. But, like I said, let's assume that homosexuality is not a choice. Someone who is homosexual can always choose to be celibate, and become homoerotic, or teach themselves to surpress all sexual desires, making themselves strictly asexual. I think that very few people are naturally asexual. I also think that, over time, you can make yourself so immune to sexual thoughts that you could potentially become just like someone who is naturally asexual. For example, a lifelong nun.

@TMW

Would you care to respond to my criticism of the argument? 9th reply

@Diplofool - are you a nu or a priest or a monk? Can you say for certain they never have a sexual thought? Considering the number of priestly sexual abuse cases, I think I can safely say that they *can't*.

@ abgemacht --

If you had a sexual attraction to your own gender, but you abstained from sex, wouldn't that make you homoerotic?

@ Draugnar --

I'm not implying that they don't. I'm just using it as an example. Please don't put words in my mouth.

@TMW

No, homoerotic is just another word for homosexual.

I don't think you're correct. I always thought of homoerotic as someone who has a sexual attraction to their own gender, but keeps their desires private and exclusive to themselves.