AD-17 - Homosexuality v2

[Tonks]

Originally Posted by guad

Well I believe that even if a person is let's say 99,999 % attracted to one gender, I believe that the potential possibility to meet this one person that attracts you exists.
I'm more on the 'never say never' thing. But of course there are persons where it is more probable or less probable (as in your case or rastabans case), which is of course ok.

I only think that there are more people with bi tendencies than there seem to be, meaning that I guess that a lot of 'straight' or 'gay' people have actually bi tendencies, or bi possiblilities.

This is mainly because I don't like to define myself, not even as bi. Bi sounds like a 50/50 thing or like somebody who has regular relations with both genders, and that's not true. It's more a 'both is possible / attractive thing', not important what gender.

I don't really define myself either although I am in a heterosexual relationship who is really to say. I just find other women attractive but do not think I could ever have a realtionship with one.

I also did not mean to say that one could not be other percentages of various mixes I was just saying mu percentage...

[Tiberius]

I prefer to think of it as a sliding scale. 1 is completely straight, 50 is bisexual, and 100 is completely homosexual. I feel this is better than using the "bucket" system when every one must fit into one of three buckets.

I'd probably be around a 2 or so....

[NextMissRowling]

Hahaha, I think I'd be like maybe a 15 or so...
I think the intention, though, when people say "everyone is born bisexual" is to say that everyone has the potential to find someone of the opposite sex attractive and someone of the same sex attractive, no matter how slim that possibility may be. After a certain pointin their life, they may indeed decide only to act on one side of that spectrum and thus become turned off by the opposite end, but they started out with the possibility there, whether or not they ruled out that possibility later on.

[Tiberius]

I think very few people are 1 or 100.

[NoDayBut2Day]

Well, I'm know that I'm a heterosexual, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a pretty woman, or admire someone's legs or hair or body or something. Would that fit more under the category of envy than homosexuality? I wonder...

I wouldn't care if I was gay, I just have never felt any sexual feelings toward any members of my sex. But, like I said, that doesn't mean I can't tell when a gorgeous woman walks by, or I can't tell what kind of women guys like to look at or whatever. Maybe it's just more of a "this is what society has presented to us as sexy, so follow along with it." thing. I dunno..

[NextMissRowling]

Mhmm... I don't know if it's actually true, but I was just assertint that that statement isn't meant to say that everyone is totally denying who they are or that everyone has equal potential to be attracted to the same sex as the opposite, etc.

[Rastaban43]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I prefer to think of it as a sliding scale. 1 is completely straight, 50 is bisexual, and 100 is completely homosexual. I feel this is better than using the "bucket" system when every one must fit into one of three buckets.

There are more than just three buckets though. A sliding scale would be fine, but then you have asexuals, autosexuals and pansexuals just to name a few that don't quite fit into the scale mold. But there are still more.

[guad]

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

There are more than just three buckets though. A sliding scale would be fine, but then you have asexuals, autosexuals and pansexuals just to name a few that don't quite fit into the scale mold. But there are still more.

And there is the problem of the eternal need of humans to catalogize persons. I think that every person is different and has different likings. Society should stop trying to put people in boxes and just accept persons, independently of who they love or with who they sleep (as long as it's mutually consented of course, there are limits)

[Xenophanes]

catalogize

???

[guad]

Originally Posted by Xenophanes

???

errr, nonnative here, sorry. I mean the fact to classify people.

[Xenophanes]

Oh, I see. I agree wholeheartedly then.

[adam_12]

Originally Posted by NoDayBut2Day

Well, I'm know that I'm a heterosexual, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a pretty woman, or admire someone's legs or hair or body or something. Would that fit more under the category of envy than homosexuality? I wonder...

I guess that's sort of how I feel sometimes too. And I'd definately agree that that's more envy then actual homosexuality.

[BabyWerewolf]

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

There are more than just three buckets though. A sliding scale would be fine, but then you have asexuals, autosexuals and pansexuals just to name a few that don't quite fit into the scale mold. But there are still more.

what are pansexuals exactly?

[guad]

Originally Posted by BabyWerewolf

what are pansexuals exactly?

lol, I only heard about this definition in this thread, but I liked it. Much better than bisexual actually. According to wiki its:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Pansexuality (sometimes referred to as omnisexuality) is a sexual orientation characterized by a potential aesthetic attraction, romantic love and/or sexual desire for anybody, including people who do not fit into the gender binary of male/female implied by bisexual attraction. Pansexuality is sometimes described as the capacity to love a person romantically irrespective of gender. Some pansexuals also assert that gender and sex are meaningless to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexual

[BabyWerewolf]

That sounds better than bisexual! The everyone being born bi would seem to refer more to that, then?

[Aqua]

Pansexuality is quite interesting. I actually have a close friend who is both pansexual and transgender. Through him I have come across people who are changed transsexuals (and therefore don't fit into either the "male" or "female" gender) and found some of them attractive, does this make me pansexual? I don't know. Like guad said, every person is different and has their own preferences.

I agree with BabyWerewolf that if we were to say everyone is one orientation then it's probably pansexual. Though I personally believe there are people who are exclusively gay or straight, they just aren't as common as people might think.

When asked which gender I prefer I've been known to answer "I don't do genders, I'm attracted to people" which basically sums up pansexuality.

[Rastaban43]

Originally Posted by guad

And there is the problem of the eternal need of humans to catalogize persons. I think that every person is different and has different likings. Society should stop trying to put people in boxes and just accept persons, independently of who they love or with who they sleep (as long as it's mutually consented of course, there are limits)

Classifications aren't so terrible when most people actually fit into them. I think it would be a tad naïve to think that most people didn't fit into categories (I don't think that's what you're saying.) There are obviously some straight people, some gay people and some bi people. That does not include all people, and I think that's most important to remember. I somewhat dislike the acronym LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) because it lumps such diverse people together. Even the category transgender is so broad, it is insulting to many people that it is a grouping at all.

But I don't think categories or classifications should be meant to box people away, just to help them find words to express themselves. That doesn't mean that a classification has to be one-hundred percent correct for all people or even most people. As long as we realise there is going to be some variance, I think classifications are OK.

Originally Posted by BabyWerewolf

what are pansexuals exactly?

In my opinion, pansexuality is more of a philosophy than an actual sexuality. It is a very nice and pretty and ideal way to view things, but it's just not always true. Bisexulity is more common than some people think, but it's not as common as some of us think. There are clear distinctions in gender and the majority of people in this world see those distinctions and define their sexualities based on those distinctions. While I think girls are great, I also think they're gross and I could never picture myself loving either sexually or emotionally a girl without completely going off my rocker.

Pansexuality looks like a nice idea, but sometimes, that idea ignores those differences that boys and girls have. I feel that those differences should be respected and celebrated some times. That's not to say that there should be discrimination or anything like that, absolutely not! But ignoring some fundamental differences is a bit callous, for most people anyway. If pansexuality suits you (speaking in general, not to anyone in specific), I hope at least that you will respcet everyone else whose sexualities are more difficultly defined.



A note on transgender and transexuality since I mentioned it. Transexuality is actually a misnomer. While homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, autosexuality, asexuality etc have clearly sexual denotations, transexuality should not be confused with them. It's not something that is sexual in the same way that those other categories are. Transexuality means that a person feels that they are a different sex other than their birth sex. It is quite separate from sexuality because there are transexuals who are also homosexuals etc. If looking at conotation, transgender (IMO) would actually be a better word to use except that it is also already a catchall category for many kinds of sexualities, lifestyles and feelings. If anyone has any questions about it, I would be happy to tell you what I know, and I think aqua would know even more about it, so you could probably ask aqua as well.

[guad]

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

But I don't think categories or classifications should be meant to box people away, just to help them find words to express themselves. That doesn't mean that a classification has to be one-hundred percent correct for all people or even most people. As long as we realise there is going to be some variance, I think classifications are OK.

I would agree with you if our world wasn't the way it is. In present times the classification of people is used in our society to mainly discriminate. If the discrimination wouldn't exist, I would be all fine with classification and diversity, because I am fully clear that not everybody is the same. Unfortunately it seems impossible right now.

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

Pansexuality looks like a nice idea, but sometimes, that idea ignores those differences that boys and girls have. I feel that those differences should be respected and celebrated some times

I agree. Of course there are differences between women and men, and this is good.

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

A note on transgender and transexuality since I mentioned it. Transexuality is actually a misnomer. While homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, autosexuality, asexuality etc have clearly sexual denotations, transexuality should not be confused with them. It's not something that is sexual in the same way that those other categories are. Transexuality means that a person feels that they are a different sex other than their birth sex. It is quite separate from sexuality because there are transexuals who are also homosexuals etc. If looking at conotation, transgender (IMO) would actually be a better word to use except that it is also already a catchall category for many kinds of sexualities, lifestyles and feelings.

I always found it strange that transgender are often confused with homosexual people. Actually it has nothing to do with it. Most transgenders are heterosexual (actually the percent of homosexual transgenders is the same than the percent of homosexuals in general). I guess that the whole mixing get's together because before their operation they usually get together with homosexual people, and also because in gay surrounding the tolerance towards transgender is more than in classic heterosexual surrounding.

[Kharina]

Originally Posted by Morgoth

Version 1

Homosexuality
The Rules

Questions

1. Homosexuality exists throughout history. In some societies it was accepted, in others it has not been. Has this trend more or less stayed the same up to today?

2. Some believe homosexuality to be a choice, others believe it goes deeper, down to a genetic level. What are your views on the origin of homosexuality?

3. What gives Person A (the politician) the right to legislate that Person B (who is gay) should not have equal rights aforded to heterosexuals? What is the benefits of such a move?

4. Should a gay couple be given the right to marry, with all the legal benefits of marriage?

5. Is your marriage directly threatened by the marriage of two gay people several thousand miles away?

6. Religious arguments aside, what grounds are there for saying a gay couple should not be allowed to marry?

7. There are single mothers, single fathers, orphans, foster children. In allowing gay couples to adopt and raise children how does this have a negative effect on them?

2) I'm not sure. It's probably a combination of genes and environment in my opinion.

3) I don't think politicians have the right to do that. It doesn't harm anyone, does it? So why shouldn't people have an equal right if they happen to be gay.

4) Definitely. They have just as much right to marry as a heterosexual couple.

5) I'm not married, but again, I can't see if I were how it would be.

6) I can't think of any. The only arguments I've heard are religious ones, which makes the argument weak IMO, because not everyone believes in God and certainly not everyone believes in the same God. So if we don't know God exists, how can we propose to make major choices for everyone in the country based solely upon that? Choices as an individual are fine dicatated by religion, but not society as a whole because we aren't all of the same religion.

7) They might be bullied by other children or might feel a bit strange and not fit in, but this is only because there are so few gay couples able to adopt children. The more gay couples there were who could adopt, the less unusual it would be.

[guad]

Originally Posted by Rastaban43

In my opinion, pansexuality is more of a philosophy than an actual sexuality. It is a very nice and pretty and ideal way to view things, but it's just not always true. Bisexulity is more common than some people think, but it's not as common as some of us think. There are clear distinctions in gender and the majority of people in this world see those distinctions and define their sexualities based on those distinctions.

I partly agree. I guess it's the philosophy most societies and laws should build on. On the other hand it's also sexual if we consider that one can be attracted to very feminine women, very masculine men, but also the more ambigous scale. Like, dunno, from Catherine Zeta Jones to Viggo Mortensen but not necesarily only these extremes.
Sometimes other things are attractive, not only the things that are typical about a gender, nor the personality, but just other things that are sexually attractive about a person. (I have no idea if that was clear )