(March 25, 2023 at 1:34 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(March 25, 2023 at 12:30 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: You know, maybe instead of focusing on the few cases where one part of the LGBTQ spectrum ends up identifying as a different part of the spectrum (like someone who previously considered themself a lesbian transforming themself into a trans man who seems to be functionally straight), there’s better possible groups that we could wonder about changing.

Maybe something like pedophilia, which, unlike the vast majority of LGBT people, is inherently dangerous if acted upon.

The OP was about whether someone who is gay can become straight.  Elliot Page proves that a lesbian can become a straight man.  There's a reason I brought it up, Page proves that orientation is mailable.  I realize people on here do not like that, but it's a fact.

His orientation didn't change, he liked women before he transitioned and he still ikes women now. If anything it supports the contention that orientation isn't malleable, you can profoundly change your gender identity without it affecting your orientation. Page's orientation is exactly what you would expect it to be. It would be just weird if she became a gay man, wouldn't it?

I'm sorry for the tone, but it's hard to say this without sounding condescending. Maybe it's the word 'orientation' that confuses you. Orientation is about who you are attracted to. Just because we have words for women attracted to women and men attracted to men and so forth doesn't mean it's a change in orientation when your gender identity changes and who you are attracted to stays the same.

(March 25, 2023 at 6:38 am)emjay Wrote: From all the convos we've ever had on here, one thing I'm pretty sure is that homophobic you are not... far from it; you seem very liberal minded to me, and hell, seem to have more gay friends than I do So whatever your leanings toward Christianity/theology, there's nothing you've ever said to me that suggests you have the sort of anti-gay agenda that usually goes hand in hand with it.

Years ago when I was working at the Metropolitan Museum's medieval branch, up at the northern end of Manhattan, we actually realized that I was the only straight white man employed in the building. I'll bet the art and design world was about half gay people in those days. And probably now it has the whole rainbow -- trans and gender fluid and everything else -- far more in evidence than in most arenas. If my white small town childhood gave me any homophobia it didn't survive contact with so many talented individuals. 

(At the last gallery I worked in, the guy I worked most closely with came to work in tears one day, because his boyfriend had left him. But his boyfriend had left him for Michael Stipe, the singer in the band REM, so he said, "I'd leave me for him, too!")

The theological issues with being gay seem less clear to me than they do to a lot of American Christians, I guess. Until the 19th century, nobody condemned homosexuality but they did condemn sodomy. The idea of orientation or intrinsic desire was moot -- morality only depended on what one did, and straight people have as many opportunities to enjoy non-approved sex as anybody else. (Without going into detail, so do I.) 

I suspect that anti-gay feeling is more something cultural that soaks into Christianity, the way capitalism does in American Christianity. It depends on the time and place, whether they get worked up about it or not. In the Renaissance the Vatican employed an artist known to everyone as Sodoma, because of his well-known preferences, and nobody worried about it. (And Leonardo's and Michelangelo's tastes were just as well-known.) Christianity is so malleable that I don't see homophobia as something intrinsic to it. 

In fact the way some ages seem to condemn homosexuality more than others is related to the thread topic, I think. The issue to me is: how malleable is human nature? Do all humans have certain characteristics in common, or does it just seem that way due to the prejudices of our age? So for example capitalists say that we are by nature greedy, and capitalism is good because it supposedly harnesses that for the greater good. But I think we may be more capable of variety than is generally known. Non-greedy societies might be possible. And since sexuality is apparently a significant part of human nature, the possibilities of variety in that aspect of our selves is an important topic -- and one that for whatever reason is particularly in the news today. 

Quote:Things like 'conversion therapy' make my blood boil, not just the ludicrous notions that it could ever work to 'pray the gay away', or the downright insulting misuse of the word 'therapy' there, but most importantly that anyone should propose or feel pressured to try something like that in the first place. 

Absolutely in agreement here. Even if it's true that one's place on the LGBT spectrum may change over a lifetime, that change must come from within the individual. Attempts at forcing anyone would be evil.

Quote:You cannot answer those two questions can you?

Yes, I very much can. And you didn't answer mine. Why is it my job to explain it to you ?

(March 25, 2023 at 8:34 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 25, 2023 at 6:38 am)emjay Wrote: From all the convos we've ever had on here, one thing I'm pretty sure is that homophobic you are not... far from it; you seem very liberal minded to me, and hell, seem to have more gay friends than I do So whatever your leanings toward Christianity/theology, there's nothing you've ever said to me that suggests you have the sort of anti-gay agenda that usually goes hand in hand with it.

Years ago when I was working at the Metropolitan Museum's medieval branch, up at the northern end of Manhattan, we actually realized that I was the only straight white man employed in the building. I'll bet the art and design world was about half gay people in those days. And probably now it has the whole rainbow -- trans and gender fluid and everything else -- far more in evidence than in most arenas. If my white small town childhood gave me any homophobia it didn't survive contact with so many talented individuals. 

(At the last gallery I worked in, the guy I worked most closely with came to work in tears one day, because his boyfriend had left him. But his boyfriend had left him for Michael Stipe, the singer in the band REM, so he said, "I'd leave me for him, too!")

LOL

Quote:The theological issues with being gay seem less clear to me than they do to a lot of American Christians, I guess. Until the 19th century, nobody condemned homosexuality but they did condemn sodomy. The idea of orientation or intrinsic desire was moot -- morality only depended on what one did, and straight people have as many opportunities to enjoy non-approved sex as anybody else. (Without going into detail, so do I.)

Don't take this as angry at you, or shooting the messenger, cos it's not, but tell that to the Ugandans... what they're doing is the real abomination. Leaving gay people in that country no sanctuary whatsoever, even if they refrain from sexual activity. Ie as I understand it, under their proposed laws there will be jail time for even identifying as gay, let alone acting on it, so completely the antithesis of 'hate the sin, love the sinner'.
 

Quote:I suspect that anti-gay feeling is more something cultural that soaks into Christianity, the way capitalism does in American Christianity. It depends on the time and place, whether they get worked up about it or not. In the Renaissance the Vatican employed an artist known to everyone as Sodoma, because of his well-known preferences, and nobody worried about it. (And Leonardo's and Michelangelo's tastes were just as well-known.) Christianity is so malleable that I don't see homophobia as something intrinsic to it.

I don't think it's intrinsic to it but rather that it amplifies and/or is used to rationalise people's existing prejudices, if they have them. 

Quote:In fact the way some ages seem to condemn homosexuality more than others is related to the thread topic, I think. The issue to me is: how malleable is human nature? Do all humans have certain characteristics in common, or does it just seem that way due to the prejudices of our age? So for example capitalists say that we are by nature greedy, and capitalism is good because it supposedly harnesses that for the greater good. But I think we may be more capable of variety than is generally known. Non-greedy societies might be possible. And since sexuality is apparently a significant part of human nature, the possibilities of variety in that aspect of our selves is an important topic -- and one that for whatever reason is particularly in the news today.

Who knows exactly what causes homophobia? But I agree there could well be a cultural aspect to it, and thankfully it does seem to be amenable to change as a result of education and/or awareness. For instance even me; I used to be quite prejudiced against drag queens, because I hadn't had much exposure to them, and the exposure I had had to them had been unpleasant (ie when I went to gay clubs there was one that was really handsy with me, and just made me feel really uncomfortable to be around... as well as being somewhat creepy to me), but then, granted out of morbid curiosity, at first at least, I started watching RuPaul's Drag Race, which was hailed as being largely about trying to raise awareness, and that it did. RuPaul him/herself being a great ambassador and inspirational figure to me. Now I've seen thirteen seasons of it and they feel like family to me.

For some reason, a person's sexual orientation has never been an issue for me. It may be because I had a great aunt who never married and dressed in what would be considered a quite masculine manner back in the day...she even smoked a pipe. I just never took the time to concern myself over what anyone else was doing with their parts....as long a what they did was consensual.

I simply don't understand why people are so worried about it. I will surely mess up pronouns and such...I am still very much a ma'am and sir person and after nearly 66 years that's a little hard to shake. And I have goofed up but found that trying to fix it seems to make it worse and more uncomfortable.

Changing body parts is something I was forced into thanks to breast cancer. I had to learn to deal with it. For someone to choose to make a body change that's similar can't be an easy thing to do or something done on a whim.

Governing and judging others based on their body parts, their wish for a body change, or who they are attracted to is just something I don't want to have to pencil into my day.

But how will you know that I am superior to you, if I don't consistently tell you?


Not so smart now, huh?

I like judging others based on their body parts.  

(March 25, 2023 at 12:11 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I like judging others based on their body parts.  

‘My wife has lovely ears - they give her a very pretty profile. Mind you, head-on they’re a bit of a shock.’ - Ernest Grainger

Boru

Was he really a lesbian or just full of poo?

(March 25, 2023 at 8:22 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I'm sorry for the tone, but it's hard to say this without sounding condescending. Maybe it's the word 'orientation' that confuses you. Orientation is about who you are attracted to. Just because we have words for women attracted to women and men attracted to men and so forth doesn't mean it's a change in orientation when your gender identity changes and who you are attracted to stays the same.

No apologies needed, you're not being condescending.  You believe that lesbians and straight men have the same sexual orientation? That is certainly not how the law defines that term.