Being gay is a fetish.

[John V]

What the fuck does it matter who is gay and who is not? We're talking about equal rights for all. If two straight men want to marry each other, they should be allowed to.

A lot of people have talked about a lot of things in this thread.

Here's what I'm talking about:
"No, as black people are born black. The born gay (as gay as the wind blows) paradigm is a recent invention for political purposes, i.e. making the very comparison you're making. Once gay rights are established firmly enough, they'll back off of that paradigm. Gays complain about discrimination from heteros, yet gays themselves discriminate against bis."

And your statement above does show some backing off from that paradigm.

I'm not sure why people are upset with me. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. I'm basically saying, You've won your rights, now you can be more open about the full range of human sexuality instead of maintaining the born straight/born gay paradigm.

[robvalue]

OK, sorry alpha. Are you all for gay marriage and against discrimination based on sexuality? If so, I apologize and I got mixed up as to your intentions. For sure, labels are somewhat arbitrary. But saying "being gay is a choice" is misleading at best, as well as pointless if we're going to treat everyone equally anyway. I don't know whether you hold that position?

[John V]

It's a human thing - we want to label stuff, because that's how our brains work. The problem comes when we 1) refuse to accept that people can be multiple labels and only see them as one or two and 2) decide that we know exactly what it means to be that label...especially when we aren't that label ourselves.

I'm going to make #getsomefuckingnuance my new hashtag.

Er, I'm the one who brought in a study on bi invisibility, and how bis have been pressured to choose one label by gays. 

[FatAndFaithless]

What the fuck does it matter who is gay and who is not? We're talking about equal rights for all. If two straight men want to marry each other, they should be allowed to.

A lot of people have talked about a lot of things in this thread.

Here's what I'm talking about:
"No, as black people are born black. The born gay (as gay as the wind blows) paradigm is a recent invention for political purposes, i.e. making the very comparison you're making. Once gay rights are established firmly enough, they'll back off of that paradigm. Gays complain about discrimination from heteros, yet gays themselves discriminate against bis."

And your statement above does show some backing off from that paradigm.

I'm not sure why people are upset with me. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. I'm basically saying, You've won your rights, now you can be more open about the full range of human sexuality instead of maintaining the born straight/born gay paradigm.

It's not so much that you're 'born gay/straight' as if that's a polar opposite discrete set of categories. The whole thing about being 'born gay/straight' is the fact that as you mature through puberty (when you discover yoru sexual attractions) you don't just get to 'choose' what those attractions are. Gay/straight/bi might be useful shortcut labels, but they aren't separate boxes.

[John V]

It's not so much that you're 'born gay/straight' as if that's a polar opposite discrete set of categories.

I agree. Yet, as shown, bis have been pressured by gays to act as if they are discrete categories. I believe this was done for political advantage, so that a comparison to the racial civil rights movement could be made.

The whole thing about being 'born gay/straight' is the fact that as you mature through puberty (when you discover yoru sexual attractions) you don't just get to 'choose' what those attractions are.  Gay/straight/bi might be useful shortcut labels, but they aren't separate boxes.

That's a loaded statement. I say replace "discover" with "develop." Again, if people were born with a fixed sexuality which was just waiting to be discovered, there would be a very high concordance on homosexuality in identical twins, who share genes and shared a womb. But, the concordance is low.

As to choosing attraction - why not, to some extent? My ideal female body type is different than it was 30 years ago. It's pretty much exactly my wife's body type. That's not a coincidence. It's conditioning.

[robvalue]

OK...

But do you think anyone should be in any way discriminated against, or not allowed to marry, because of sexuality?

[John V]

Article from psychology today saying some of the things I'm saying:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay...changeable

[robvalue]

I'll be in the corner sticking my nob in the "gayometer"

[John V]

OK...

But do you think anyone should be in any way discriminated against, or not allowed to marry, because of sexuality?

"In any way" is way broad, and I'd have to answer "yes." I don't see why a church should be forced to accept all sexualities if it doesn't want to. I don't see why a gay bar shouldn't be able to ask a group of opposite-sex couples to leave if they want to.

As for marriage, in a democratic republic, IMO whatever is voted for is fine by me.

BTW, I have gay clients. Doesn't bother me. In quizzes on attitudes toward homosexuality, I tend to come up as slightly non-homophobic. 

I'm proposing a more progressive view of sexuality than most of you. I'm just getting crap for it because I'm a theist. People aren't really thinking about my positions.

[abaris]

I'm just getting crap for it because I'm a theist. People aren't really thinking about my positions.

Butthurt much?

It's one thing if a church chooses to enforce Middle Eastern Iron Age morality, but it's a different thing if said church tries to influence secular authorities to enforce them on the population at large.

And that's the problem. Not some religious bigots having a cercle jerk in their enclosed environment.