Is being gay a choice?

[poet]

You'll support the "choice" if it's the right choice being a heterosexual becoming a homosexual.

You will oppose the "choice" and insist the choice isn't possible if a homosexual decides to become a heterosexual.

Freedom is about choices. Your agenda isn't about choices, it's about recruitment for political power whatever the cost might be for people.

Choice? If sexual orientation is of choice, why don't you choose to be gay for a month, to try it out.....to experience something "new" and exciting? I "tried" heterosexual sex..and while perfunctory and "different", it didn't necessarily "blow my skirt up"....
know what I mean?
If it was about "choice" then my choice would be "sex with a man", because men have something that women don't have...that
special flavor called "maleness". And the attraction for such has absolutely nothing to do with "choice"....it's just the way that it
is. So there.

 

[dixon76710]

Just say no to drugs. Who said that a hetero can transform (no less) into a homo, or equally as preposterous, that a homo can transform into a hetero??????????? I suggest to you that the hetero was never really a hetero ifn he is doing anything gay....and like wise a gay repressing his true nature is simply that. Thanks for the belly laugh.

Preposterous, they are bisexual, repressing their true nature.


The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

[dixon76710]

All couples that are not of the same race or religion could be excluded under your idiotic reasoning, dix. What you are promoting is invidious discrimination by the state.

You haven't yet comprehended my reasoning. A man and woman of different races or religions procreate just like couples made up of men and woman of the same race or religion. Children from mothers and fathers of
different races or religions benefit just as much from the advantage of both their mother and father in the
home, and can suffer from the detriment of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers.
According to my reasoning, excluding couples not of the same race or religion would be UN constitutional
because race and religion has no rational relation to the governmental interest in reducing the number of
single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers.