Sure, but no psychosocial research explain 100% of any population.

And some people not becoming aroused in one set of research doesn't mean they aren't capable of "abnormal" (for them) sexual arousal in some other setting. You're either being disingenuous or you don't understand the point I was trying to make.

There is a difference between debating and trolling. AFAIK Sgt has done a great job distinguishing between the two. For the most part Pizdec and Henleys have shown they can have contrary opinions without being A-holes about it.

just being disingenuous. and i do apologize. i go caught up in people just throwing around "facts". I do realize that your point was needed to clear up someone's confusion. my bad.

Can we lock this thread yet?

Cliff Notes: Poker player makes a blog post saying he likes to have sex with men. Several 2+2er's break down in tears, thinking that this is the most incredible, bravest thing in the history of the world, whereas reasonable, intelligent people don't understand what the fuss is about it.

Nothing to see here.

FYP.

No the thread isn't going to be locked.

To each his own. Keep this thread going forever if you must, however if you honestly feel that a little-known poker player making a blog post in which he describes which gender he prefers to have sex has "broad societal implications," then me thinks you need to read a little more history and less NVG.

If you think that someone who's up well over 1m online, has 3 WSOP FTs including a bracelet, and makes a blog post that a 2p2 pokercast host makes a thread about is a "little-known" poker player.....

um, hes not even that well known in the poker community. you listed accomplishments.

I guess that's why no one noticed his blog post. Oh wait

I personally think that the vast majority of homosexuals (or any sexuality) are born into it rather than "becoming" gay based on environmental factors, but I don't think we can entirely rule this out. There are things like prison sexuality, dormant sexuality, sexuality that may arise from childhood abuse, or whatever. But others, like my brother, claims to have known he was gay since he was 5 years old, and I hardly think that can be environmental. Though, this is somewhat besides the point I'm trying to make... which is, who cares why somebody is gay? Whether there's an element of "choice" to it is completely irrelevant. Why does the "why" matter? Homosexuality exists, period. Analysis as to why it exists shouldn't change anything. It just is, and there should be an absolute acceptance whether one chooses to be gay (which I believe is rarely if ever the case), or is genetical predisposed to homosexuality. The fact that this thread is so long and full of discussion and trolls and difference of opinion only proves the hypocrisy in the claim that "2012: homosexuality is completely accepted and it doesn't matter and coming out is attention whoring." It's obviously not something that's in complete acceptance and understanding if there's still so much debate about it.

I would much prefer the second option. I'd then sit him down and educate him on respecting and accepting others.

Agreed.

And what's the solution? Do you really think that every gay celebrity coming out will solve anything?

The only thing that will stop discrimination is education, and it has to start early in a person's life.

SGT RJ:

I totally disagree with this. You can do virtually everything in a relationship with someone *besides* having sex and you are not in a gay relationship. Being in a gay relationship is defined by being sexually attracted/active with members of the same sex. The dictionary agrees with me by the way. The definition of gay is a homosexual. The definition of homosexual is "A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex". I get that this is a controversial subject but you're just disagreeing with a plain fact here. So please drop the personal attacks telling me that there is something wrong with me for focusing on the sex for no reason - saying you're gay is all about the sex.

Also I think you completely missed the entire point of my post and are diverting the discussion. I think you have a good point that in marketing sex is certainly used a lot. But that is a lot different than sex preferences coming up in credible news sources.

Please stop the personal attacks and, as you said, "debate nicely".

Also since a few guys seemed to have misinterpreted what I wrote: I don't hate gay people and fully think (and vote) for them to have equal rights. I think they should be able to get married, have kids, serve in the military and so on. I absolutely am against the government putting any kind of restrictions on these people at all. What I am saying is that coming out and telling people your specific sexual desires is not socially acceptable at all and most people do not want to hear about *anyone's* sexual preference's - at least not in mainstream sources. If you want to talk about sexual stuff there is a completely different forum for that.

I personally am just tired of hearing, "Oh yeah, this famous person came out of the closet!" for the same reason that I hate almost all celebrity news. It doesn't matter, it doesn't help anyone and it is just BS.

not really

"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1][2]" (wiki)

the wiki article for heterosexuality writes in an equivalent way

obv it's about love etc. as well, people just focus on the sexual attraction aspect to make a specific biological definition or whatever. you can be in a gay relationship without sex. this would seem mind blowingly obvious to me and i suspect most of the thread posters based on their reactions, so you kind of need to drastically reassess how you see things here and why you're in total disagreement with the idea

Wikipedia is a bad source that constantly gets manipulated. The other things that the article points out are other things besides sexual orientation. The affection/romantic attractions are part of being in a relationship/doing activities together/etc.

I do not come on here and say, "I am heterosexual" to tell you that I like holding hands and taking long walks on the beach with girls. I tell you that, once again by the dictionary definition, to tell you that I like having sex (in one form or another) with members of the opposite sex. The words homosexual and heterosexual are by their very definition about sex. You and wikipedia can spin it all you want but you're not going to convince me.

Also I honestly think this is a ******ed thing to even be discussing. I don't actually see how this is even relevant to what I wrote in my original post at all. I think nobody had a decent answer to it (besides pointing out that marketers use sex to sell) and this is being used in a really weak way to detract from what I was saying.

pretty sure if you polled people with the question 'can you be in a homosexual relationship if it's not sexual' the reply would overwhelmingly be yes, you can.

and yeah people not feeling the need to specify 'i'm in a heterosexual relationship' might have something to do with it being the norm for 90+% of the population (?)

you might be focusing too much on semantics. dictionaries may (how do you even define 'the dictionary definition tho'?) include sex as a main characteristic just to be specific

I was only interested in the 'by definition you can't be gay if you're not sexually active within the relationship' statement, that jumped out at me

I am not actually the person focusing on sementics at all here. Being a male homosexual means you are sexually attracted to other men. If you are not sexually attracted to other men then you are not a homosexual. This is very specifically what it means and I am right. You are trying to lawyer it into being more than that for some really weird reason that I actually don't even understand. I mean if I conceded that it isn't all about the sex (though it is) how would that change anything what I wrote in my original post anyway?

Also your question is is just silly. I'd say yes to that question but you're still wrong. It is about a persons attraction/motivation/etc.

Is this the same logic that vegans use to always let people know that they are vegan? How about this: almost nobody cares.

Well Kardnel, its good to see you elaborated your position from your first post. What do you make of men who have sex with others for monetary gain then? Do they fit your definition of homosexual? There are several men who have appeared in adult films but later on resume "normal" heterosexual relationships (marriage, children) without ever looking back. I'm tending to agree on Sgt on this one:

Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. It depends on if they enjoy having sex with men or not.

it's very important for people who think/feel that homosexuality is "wrong", digusting etc. so they can blame them for their sexuality.
of course this is dumb.

He drives me crazy ooh oh oooh ooh
He drives me crazy ooh oh ooh oooh
He drives me crazy, and I cant heeeelp myself

Jason is scheduled to join us on the Pokercast tonight. Rather than starting a new thread, if you have questions about his blog or poker related questions for him, post them here and we'll try to use a couple of good ones. Don't be an idiot.

it's difficult.