You mean that Anne Heche is bisexual, and her decisions were for her behaviors, not for her attractions. Find me a quote where she states that she was choosing to not feel attraction to females anymore.

And you missed my other post.

Let's also look at Cynthia Nixon, since that should be coming soon. First, she said that she was gay and she was straight, and she was choosing to be gay. But then: http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-n...ual-not-choice

"While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship."

She admits to having phrased it poorly, which is similar to what Anne Heche may have done, but clearly states that her sexual orientation is not a choice.

I wonder if festeringZit feels it's his 'choice' to be attracted towards women?

It should be obvious (at least to people not blinded by ideology) why people make this assumption. There are a lot of reasons why someone in our society who is attracted to people of their own gender would nonetheless be in a heterosexual relationship or identify as straight. There are many fewer reasons (and opportunities) why someone who is attracted to people of the opposite gender would nonetheless be in a homosexual relationship or identify as gay.

In other words, this assumption is a result of contingent facts about our own society, not a generalization that applies to all societies.

Ahh, so Anne Heche is bisexual, but she states clearly that she
never had a gay thought until she met Ellen.

Interesting how that works.

I can address this more directly later if necessary, but I think you are distracting from the real point. Did Anne choose to feel attracted to Ellen, or did that just happen and what she chose was to pursue that? When the relationship was over, did she choose to feel attracted exclusively to males, it did she choose to just not enter into a relationship with a female?

Did you choose to be attracted to females, or to blondes or redheads, or a certain personality, or did that just happen, and your choice was only in who you pursued? How do you not get how this really works?

Wilfull ignorance would be my guess.

Willful ignorance is one way to put it.

It's pretty simple...the bible says homosexuality is a sin. Yet, there are lots of gay people. If god makes us, and makes some of us gay, that is a pretty big contradiction. Therefore, christians like festeringzit have no choice but to believe that being gay is a choice.

Obviously this seems very stupid to those of us who actually know gay people. But if judging things by reason and evidence were a universal trait, there would be no christians.

@festeringZit:

Could you just choose to be gay? Try it. You don't have to act on it. Just decide you really, really want to be sexually attracted to people of your own gender. Let us know how that works for you.

What I'm saying is very clear. Despite the desperate attempts
to find a "gay gene" or to prove that homosexuality is genetic
and inborn, there is NO consensus among scientists and psychologists
at all that it is that.

Are some people born with gay inclinations? Probably so. Some
people have the innate desire to bang little children too.

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,

"Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors. "

And FesteringTwit is apparently basing his beliefs on a sample size of Anne Heche.

Total non sequitur.

Nice try though.

festeringZit, this is going to end up worse for you than the whale thread.

EDIT: Please..please...PLEASE start a thread on this topic expressing your views. This thread is long in the tooth as is.

LOL...I forgot about the whale thread.

I'm sure FZ will create the thread as soon as he gets back from his Mensa meeting.

Why does it matter wether it's genetic or a by choice?

Also, please reply to this:

Not exactly on topic, but Chick-fil-A is apparently "no longer funding money towards “traditional marriage” or “anti-gay marriage” groups."

More details:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...rriage-groups/

excellent. chick-fil-a is clearly now under the influence of satan. score another point for the winning team.

And yet, nothing on their own web page / press releases.

A good day for marriage equality.

Good for them but now they're taking it too far the other way:

There are plenty of people I'd happily discriminate against because of their beliefs and I bet if I walked into one of their restaurants wearing a KKK outfit they'd do it too. So really that statement means nothing.

A massive day. 4/4 (probably) wins, with three new states up for legalization. And done the preferred way, not by court decisions or even legislative decisions. Win the hearts and minds of the people (something that needs to be done anyways to prevent all the soft discrimination) and have them put it in place. Not to mention first gay senator and a smattering of other victories around the country.

Earlier in this thread Aaron had this distorted pragmatic argument where he was opposing marriage equality because, allegedly, marriage equality wasn't going to be won this way and its nascent momentum would stall and it would be much more likely to succeed if you instead went for the plan with zero momentum: a word trick to change the word "marriage" to "civil union" with respect to government.

Maybe he is still right. Maybe there will be some big stall in the future and this other plan will suddenly pick up. But last night there was the single biggest leap forward for marriage equality rights at the ballot box and the momentum that was already there and the consistent increase in popular support is now translating into actual wins at the ballot box. In contrast to this tremendous momentum that will very likely see several more initiatives on the ballot boxes next time round, Aaron's plan has more or less zero momentum.

Btw, this article is interesting: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._strategy.html

Earlier in this thread I received some flak for talking about marriage in terms of "letting two people who love each other commit themselves to each other" or things like this. I was told that no, Christians viewed marriage differently that it was, say, a union under god between a man and a woman. I used the lovey dovey rhetoric because, in my experience, because of a theory of change that has found, in my experience, talking about the shared aspects of marriage such as love is a great way to move people into our camp. This article says much the same, and that much of the success is do in part to a shift from arguing for marriage as a civil or human rights issue - something cold, unemotional, and detached - to being something about love and commitment that straight people could easily identify with because this is also how they see their own marriages. It is nice to have confirmation that not just the result, but also the strategy to achieve the results, worked out.

slight fyp nit, probably

True.