Gays, Are they Born Or Made?

[$tyli$h Executive]

I'm yet to meet a gay. I wonder if they'll jump on me first time they see me. 

But to answer the topic - From what I can speculate, gays are born, not made. Usually very few people are exposed to gay porn in their early life. So, its not clear why they would develop sexual desire for males in the earlier phase of their life and turn out to be gay afterwards.

[***exam***]

i always wonder why some1 being gay makes such a big news !
i have met my cousin's frnd whoz gay n they are just like any of us !
n no1z born with a sexual orientation its just what they opt to be !!

[$tyli$h Executive]

i always wonder why some1 being gay makes such a big news !
i have met my cousin's frnd whoz gay n they are just like any of us !
n no1z born with a sexual orientation its just what they opt to be !!

Imagine your cousin's friend (assuming she's a female) trying to make out with you. As a normal hetro-sexual person, won't it be very strange to you?

That's why it makes the news!

[***exam***]

Imagine your cousin's friend (assuming she's a female) trying to make out with you. As a normal hetro-sexual person, won't it be very strange to you?

That's why it makes the news!

yep it wld be cuz i prefer to be straight  !
u can also think the other way round !   a straight person tries to make out with a gay ! wldnt it be weird 4 the gay person !
  so as per what u say ! 
being straight should also make the news !!

[$tyli$h Executive]

yep it wld be cuz i prefer to be straight  !
u can also think the other way round !   a straight person tries to make out with a gay ! wldnt it be weird 4 the gay person !
  so as per what u say ! 
being straight should also make the news !!

Actually, it would be very normal for the gay person because gays know very well that the majority (>95% probably) of human population are straight. He/she would expect a member of the opposite sex trying to hit on him/her (but would politely reject it).

[***exam***]

now thats a biased opinion !

the 95 % shld agree that the remaining 5 % do exist  n whatever stands right 4 95 % shld be right 4 the 5 %

so in the above case the 95 % shld politely refuse the 5 % if they approach ! rather than freaking out !!

[$tyli$h Executive]

now thats a biased opinion !

the 95 % shld agree that the remaining 5 % do exist  n whatever stands right 4 95 % shld be right 4 the 5 %

so in the above case the 95 % shld politely refuse the 5 % if they approach ! rather than freaking out !!

I do not approve or endorse homosexuality in any way. But I do believe that gays should not be discriminated in our society and it should be taken as normal by the other 95%.

But can gays really be treated equally in all occupations, or are we just dreaming? Take the example of army. Imagine your teammate trying to feel you up when you guys are in an important operation.  

So, its not a question of whether they should/should not be treated equally. Rather its about whether they can be treated equally.

Also, consider the fact that most religion (not only Islam) does not approve of a person being homosexual. Given this fact, it may not be possible for a person to practice homosexuality publicly in all societies.

Given the different complications, I think that the best solution for gays is to change their sexual orientation so that they become heterosexual, perhaps through counseling or otherwise.

[Crooked]

=|


Thisain'tspam,myfriends.Thisain'tspam.

[$tyli$h Executive]

=|


Thisain'tspam,myfriends.Thisain'tspam.

Feel free to provide counter arguments.

[sabbath_92]

I do not approve or endorse homosexuality in any way. But I do believe that gays should not be discriminated in our society and it should be taken as normal by the other 95%.

But can gays really be treated equally in all occupations, or are we just dreaming? Take the example of army. Imagine your teammate trying to feel you up when you guys are in an important operation.  

So, its not a question of whether they should/should not be treated equally. Rather its about whether they can be treated equally.

Also, consider the fact that most religion (not only Islam) does not approve of a person being homosexual. Given this fact, it may not be possible for a person to practice homosexuality publicly in all societies.

Given the different complications, I think that the best solution for gays is to change their sexual orientation so that they become heterosexual, perhaps through counseling or otherwise.

I am straight and I don't try to feel up any females that I come across nor am I attracted to ALL females I come across. Don't understand how you wouldn't consider the same analogy for homosexuals.

[sabbath_92]

i always wonder why some1 being gay makes such a big news !
i have met my cousin's frnd whoz gay n they are just like any of us !
n no1z born with a sexual orientation its just what they opt to be !!

Err no, why would they voluntarily opt to be gay.

[$tyli$h Executive]

I am straight and I don't try to feel up any females that I come across nor am I attracted to ALL females I come across. Don't understand how you wouldn't consider the same analogy for homosexuals.

This is an article written by a military personnel himself on the subject: http://www.compleatheretic.com/pubs/essays/gayban2.html

Excerpt from the article:

Military units are worse than small towns. Everyone was aware of the situation. My roommates' affair had pushed our unit out of its normal rhythms. The feeling of trust had been violated. My roommates became the focus of unit discontent.

The presence of known homosexuals is disruptive to the good order and discipline of military units. When my roommates became a couple, they ceased to be members of our unit in a social and emotional sense. They became so obsessed with one another and their relationship that they couldn't or wouldn't fulfill their responsibilities to the rest of us. Their commitment to one another negated the required loyalty to the Army and to their fellow soldiers. They willfully violated the regulations and policies of an organization that they freely joined. Not only were they abusive to me, they were defensive and confrontational with other members of our unit. They acted as though we and the Army were the ones who were wrong. For our part, we others couldn't and wouldn't accept their relationship. This exacerbated the situation and turned it into them against us. This state of affairs was intolerable.

Barracks life is highly communal, and privacy is very limited, but these conditions foster the camaraderie and the unit cohesion that is vital to the proper functioning of a combat-ready force. In the military, respect and loyalty between members is powerful enough to transcend almost every animosity. One is constantly aware of the fact that the SOB down the hall could very well be the SOB who comes between you and death. One disrupts the process at the risk of needlessly lost lives when war becomes a painful necessity. Males have a natural discomfort for homosexuality and intuitively know that they are not to relate to one another in that manner. In the close quarters of the barracks, this discomfort becomes a vital animosity which cannot be transcended.

The advocates for lifting the ban assume that homosexuals would "check their sexuality at the door" of their barracks. The opponents of lifting the ban and the militant homosexuals seeking an end to it agree that this is ludicrous. The advocates' assumption requires that homosexuals remain celibate because any expression of sexuality will probably end up in the barracks. The extreme promiscuity of male homosexuals makes this an inevitability.



Apparently, homosexuals are more aggressive than straight people.

[sabbath_92]

This is an article written by a military personnel himself on the subject: http://www.compleatheretic.com/pubs/essays/gayban2.html

Excerpt from the article:

Military units are worse than small towns. Everyone was aware of the situation. My roommates' affair had pushed our unit out of its normal rhythms. The feeling of trust had been violated. My roommates became the focus of unit discontent.

The presence of known homosexuals is disruptive to the good order and discipline of military units. When my roommates became a couple, they ceased to be members of our unit in a social and emotional sense. They became so obsessed with one another and their relationship that they couldn't or wouldn't fulfill their responsibilities to the rest of us. Their commitment to one another negated the required loyalty to the Army and to their fellow soldiers. They willfully violated the regulations and policies of an organization that they freely joined. Not only were they abusive to me, they were defensive and confrontational with other members of our unit. They acted as though we and the Army were the ones who were wrong. For our part, we others couldn't and wouldn't accept their relationship. This exacerbated the situation and turned it into them against us. This state of affairs was intolerable.

Barracks life is highly communal, and privacy is very limited, but these conditions foster the camaraderie and the unit cohesion that is vital to the proper functioning of a combat-ready force. In the military, respect and loyalty between members is powerful enough to transcend almost every animosity. One is constantly aware of the fact that the SOB down the hall could very well be the SOB who comes between you and death. One disrupts the process at the risk of needlessly lost lives when war becomes a painful necessity. Males have a natural discomfort for homosexuality and intuitively know that they are not to relate to one another in that manner. In the close quarters of the barracks, this discomfort becomes a vital animosity which cannot be transcended.

The advocates for lifting the ban assume that homosexuals would "check their sexuality at the door" of their barracks. The opponents of lifting the ban and the militant homosexuals seeking an end to it agree that this is ludicrous. The advocates' assumption requires that homosexuals remain celibate because any expression of sexuality will probably end up in the barracks. The extreme promiscuity of male homosexuals makes this an inevitability.



Apparently, homosexuals are more aggressive than straight people.

This is anecdotal though, and just because a homophobic army personnel gives his take on the subject doesn't prove that homosexuals are more aggressive than straight people. Recently there was an uproar about about a gay guy being discharged from the US army owing to the homophobic albeit ignorant mindset of the 60 something generals of the US army, and when asked why this was done there was no evidence to prove that homosexuals are more aggresive than straight people. Actually there's a law now in place that doesn't allow discrimination based on sexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Don.27t_Ask.2C_Don.27t_Tell_Repeal_Act_of_2010

[$tyli$h Executive]

This is anecdotal though, and just because a homophobic army personnel gives his take on the subject doesn't prove that homosexuals are more aggressive than straight people. Recently there was an uproar about about a gay guy being discharged from the US army owing to the homophobic albeit ignorant mindset of the 60 something generals of the US army, and when asked why this was done there was no evidence to prove that homosexuals are more aggresive than straight people. Actually there's a law now in place that doesn't allow discrimination based on sexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Don.27t_Ask.2C_Don.27t_Tell_Repeal_Act_of_2010

I know about the recent repeal of the law. But that's not the subject here.

I don't think he is homophobic. He describes himself as : "economic and social conservative, republican, union member, moral traditionalistic, US army veteran, secular atheist"

Plus, he is tolerant of homosexuals.

As an aside, opposing the normalization of homosexuality is not advocating violence against homosexuals. One of the functions of society is create a sense a personal security for its members. Individuals who engage in "F*g-bashing" are criminals and should be treated as such.

Recently there was an uproar about about a gay guy being discharged from the US army owing to the homophobic albeit ignorant mindset of the 60 something generals of the US army, and when asked why this was done there was no evidence to prove that homosexuals are more aggresive than straight people.

The firsthand experience of any army veteran should be a credible evidence of how homosexuality interferes in a job! Please read the full article from the link.

[***exam***]

Err no, why would they voluntarily opt to be gay.

there i meant they are attracted to same gender ppl n they din really choice to be so since birth !!
:/


n abt equal rights it can n shld be given !
in the case of the military thingi  just because of those to homo who r incapble of serving their oath to their country the other cant be denied of that !
there cld be rules n regulations  which wld be applied to all in the military n those who dont stand by it can be kicked off  without holding there sexual orientation responsible 4 it !!