Post-election Commentaries, Thoughts

[U2Traveller]

So you're just changing your position to make your argument more convincing? Two minutes ago you said you're just not attracted to women, implying that you don't have to make a conscious choice not to be attracted to them. Now you're claiming it is a conscious choice?

In any case, do you really choose to be attracted to particular men? Do you consciously say "I will be attracted to Bono, but not to the man next door"? Or do you just see a picture of Bono and are naturally attracted to him, but don't feel the same way about your neighbour?

I don't have to be attracted to Bono. I've turned that off at times. That what you do in a monogamous relationship, you know, you turn off your attraction to other men. There's some men I could NEVER be attracted to because they're just repulsive.

As for being attracted to women...if I was attracted to women it'd be the Andrea Corr/ Ali type. I could be attracted to a woman if I chose to be. Once when I was teenager I was, for about three days. She was quite a manly woman.

 

[BVS]

So you're just changing your position to make your argument more convincing? Two minutes ago you said you're just not attracted to women, implying that you don't have to make a conscious choice not to be attracted to them. Now you're claiming it is a conscious choice?

In any case, do you really choose to be attracted to particular men? Do you consciously say "I will be attracted to Bono, but not to the man next door"? Or do you just see a picture of Bono and are naturally attracted to him, but don't feel the same way about your neighbour?

Sounds like someone's flip flopping...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I don't have to be attracted to Bono. I've turned that off at times. That what you do in a monogamous relationship, you know, you turn off your attraction to other men. There's some men I could NEVER be attracted to because they're just repulsive.

The fact that you acknowledge there are some people you could never be attracted to demonstrates that sexuality can't be a choice: if it were then you would be able to choose to be attracted to whoever you wished. Why is it so hard to believe that a gay person feels about people of the opposite gender the way you do about the people you describe as "repulsive"?

 

[BVS]

I don't have to be attracted to Bono. I've turned that off at times. That what you do in a monogamous relationship, you know, you turn off your attraction to other men. There's some men I could NEVER be attracted to because they're just repulsive.

As for being attracted to women...if I was attracted to women it'd be the Andrea Corr/ Ali type. I could be attracted to a woman if I chose to be. Once when I was teenager I was, for about three days. She was quite a manly woman.

You're confusing attraction and acting upon it. So you're attracted to Bono, but only sometimes?

Even if you're in a relationship you can find other people attractive it's just natural, just don't act upon it. When you walk down the street and see another attractive man you don't notice it? So once you got married you have never noticed another man?

 

[U2Traveller]

The fact that you acknowledge there are some people you could never be attracted to demonstrates that sexuality can't be a choice: if it were then you would be able to choose to be attracted to whoever you wished. Why is it so hard to believe that a gay person feels about people of the opposite gender the way you do about the people you describe as "repulsive"?

I think it's other things that makes someone attractive, not their sex. Like if they're in shape, etc.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think it's other things that makes someone attractive, not their sex. Like if they're in shape, etc.

So whether someone works out or not is more likely to determine whether you're attracted to them than whether they're male or female? Really?

 

[U2Traveller]

You're confusing attraction and acting upon it. So you're attracted to Bono, but only sometimes?

Even if you're in a relationship you can find other people attractive it's just natural, just don't act upon it. When you walk down the street and see another attractive man you don't notice it? So once you got married you have never noticed another man?

I think it's more like you don't dwell on it, you don't let it sink in, you don't have hungry eyes. You can have hungry eyes for anyone if you really want. I think it's a choice.

 

[U2Traveller]

So whether someone works out or not is more likely to determine whether you're attracted to them than whether they're male or female? Really?

Sure, unless whether they are male or female is also a factor. So you can decide only people with muscles are attractive, and then say it can only be men.

I think, seriously, that attraction might not be a sexual orientation at all. So, homosexuality is a choice.

 

[BVS]

I think it's more like you don't dwell on it, you don't let it sink in, you don't have hungry eyes. You can have hungry eyes for anyone if you really want. I think it's a choice.

You are contradicting yourself. You wouldn't have to worry about it sinking in or dwelling on it if the initial attraction wasn't there. Face it you are naturally attracted to men, that's how it works. You don't wake up one morning and say I'm going to be attracted to women today because It's Wednesday.

 

[nbcrusader]

From post election commentary to sexual attractions of mormon girls - next on FYM!

 

[U2Traveller]

From post election commentary to sexual attractions of mormon girls - next on FYM!

LOL

 

[U2Traveller]

You are contradicting yourself. You wouldn't have to worry about it sinking in or dwelling on it if the initial attraction wasn't there. Face it you are naturally attracted to men, that's how it works. You don't wake up one morning and say I'm going to be attracted to women today because It's Wednesday.

I get the feeling that some people want this particular strain stopped, lol.

I think you wake up every day with the choice, just like you wake up every day with the choice of whether or not you are going to swear, smoke, be rude to people, be happy, etc.

I like the idea that it's a choice.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.

 

[BVS]

From post election commentary to sexual attractions of mormon girls - next on FYM!

Yes it's quite a journey but actually FYM as a whole has changed in the past few days. A swarm of new people left and right and tempers are high. I thought it would cool down, but no sign as of yet.

 

[BVS]

I get the feeling that some people want this particular strain stopped, lol.

I think you wake up every day with the choice, just like you wake up every day with the choice of whether or not you are going to swear, smoke, be rude to people, be happy, etc.

I like the idea that it's a choice.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.

I dare say if you took a poll, that 99% of the people in here would say that the attraction they feel towards a paticular sex be it male or female, would say it's natual and not a concious choice. I know mine is. But I will end this debate for it's going nowhere.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

If people choose to believe that incest = homosexuality or polygamy = homosexuality... go right ahead. I did not argue that. The point of referencing those "lifestyles" was to contest the defintition of bigot as mentioned by Diemen. Nothing about homosexuality is the same as incest, etc. Of course they are not exactly the same just as heterosexuality is different from homosexuality.

People make arguments that they are not the same thing b/c of the "negative conseqences" in terms of children (i.e. birth defects). Howver do you believe there isn't some love relationship (no matter how sick - my opinion) that is being repressed by society and government (e.g. regulated unfairly)? People can make issues about birth defects but that "problem" can be circumvented.

So now, voila - incest is ok. However, I disagree... it could just under the premise that it is very unhealthy relationship be it spiritual or psychological. I then say lets try to regulate it. Does it make me a bigot? Under, Diemen's argument I am a bigot, b/c I'm preventing mutual love from coming about. I diasagree. Therefore I disagree with the idea that all people who oppose gay marriage as bigots. Maybe there are people who are genuinely repulsed by gay people and hate them no matter what and do so in foward and active matter with no explanation. I can call them bigots. People who are responsive to gays and repectful but disagree with an issue (for whatever reason) are not bigots.

As for the issue about choice vs. genetics in the homosexual debate... I'm not going to touch it but I'm interested in knowing the "proof" that states gay people are gay b/c of genetics and they can't help it. I only know possible theories but nothing concrete. From what I understand, people point to a combination of things from environment, genetics, etc... Reading some of the above posts people make it sound like its absolute truth that its "genetic" and I'd like to find out more about the smoking gun.

~note... I believe there maybe some genetic predisposition...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I happen to believe the "age old argument" that homosexuals would never consciously make a choice to love who they love when it results in the grief and hatred that some people can subject them to . And quite possibly some have denied themselves that "choice" in fear of that grief and hatred. Or denied what they know from an early age about what gender they are attracted to, for that very reason. I certainly don't presume to speak for anyone here, maybe if they felt comfortable they could speak about that, that's solely up to them obviously

I am attracted to qualities in women that I find attractive in people in general-kindness, good sense of humor, intelligence, and many others. That's what I "choose" to be attracted to I suppose. But I'm not physically or sexually attracted to them, though I certainly can appreciate their beauty. I believe I was born w/ that preference, it wasn't a conscious choice on my part.

I guess I'm naive and idealistic enough to believe that God made us all the way He did, and loves us all equally.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Haven't people heard, some scientists believe in the existence of a god gene and there are people who just are predisposed to worship a deity. You know these people actually say they love and follow that deity and stuff. There are some areas where such a belief system are mocked and derided so they have to gather around like minded people in order not to offend. However, they want their beliefs to be accepted as part of the mainstream and don't want government to limit their expression of love toward their deity. However there are non-deity lovers who oppose this and are preventing these people from fully realizing there love (e.g. France).

When you deny one group the same rights (i.e expression of their beliefs) another group has simply because of their genetic orientation, you are a bigot. If you believe it is wrong, that is your belief. But once you push that belief into a law that infringes upon or denies the rights of another citizen, then you are a bigot.

 

[BVS]

As for the issue about choice vs. genetics in the homosexual debate... I'm not going to touch it but I'm interested in knowing the "proof" that states gay people are gay b/c of genetics and they can't help it. I only know possible theories but nothing concrete. From what I understand, people point to a combination of things from environment, genetics, etc... Reading some of the above posts people make it sound like its absolute truth that its "genetic" and I'd like to find out more about the smoking gun.

~note... I believe there maybe some genetic predisposition...

Melon's posted some great information on this subject, but I wouldn't know where to begin looking.

All I can say to people who think it's simple as choice is let me know when the last time you chose something that made your parents disown you, your church look down upon you, got you beaten down to the last few breaths of your life and fear telling certain people. Easy choice right? Why risk all of this if really all you do is say I'm attracted to the opposite sex now. There's no cost to changing your mind. It's not like religion when there's a question of salvation at stake. It's not like choosing drugs when your life is at stake. It's just as simple as attraction.

Come on, give me a break.

 

[U2Traveller]

I happen to believe the "age old argument" that homosexuals would never consciously make a choice to love who they love when it results in the grief and hatred that some people can subject them to . And quite possibly some have denied themselves that "choice" in fear of that grief and hatred. Or denied what they know from an early age about what gender they are attracted to, for that very reason. I certainly don't presume to speak for anyone here, maybe if they felt comfortable they could speak about that, that's solely up to them obviously

I am attracted to qualities in women that I find attractive in people in general-kindness, good sense of humor, intelligence, and many others. That's what I "choose" to be attracted to I suppose. But I'm not physically or sexually attracted to them, though I certainly can appreciate their beauty. I believe I was born w/ that preference, it wasn't a conscious choice on my part.

I guess I'm naive and idealistic enough to believe that God made us all the way He did, and loves us all equally.

That's not naive. That's the truth. The issue is whether or not he actually MADE some people homosexuals.

I think it could also have some genetic factors. It's possible, just like cancer does. Now I know people will get made at THAT analogy.

Anyway, bottom-line, I don't have a problem with homosexuals, and I don't think that most of the people who voted for those stupid amendments are bigots. I just don't think the whole issue was discussed enough.

 

[BVS]

I think it could also have some genetic factors. It's possible, just like cancer does. Now I know people will get made at THAT analogy.

Anyway, bottom-line, I don't have a problem with homosexuals

It sure is hard to believe given the fact that you've compared them to cancer and murderers.

I've been absolutely discusted now and ban myself from this discussion.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Melon's posted some great information on this subject, but I wouldn't know where to begin looking.

All I can say to people who think it's simple as choice is let me know when the last time you chose something that made your parents disown you, your church look down upon you, got you beaten down to the last few breaths of your life and fear telling certain people. Easy choice right? Why risk all of this if really all you do is say I'm attracted to the opposite sex now. There's no cost to changing your mind. It's not like religion when there's a question of salvation at stake. It's not like choosing drugs when your life is at stake. It's just as simple as attraction.

Come on, give me a break.

You know religion has its share of persecution and unhappiness...

"It's just simple attraction." People do crazy and seemingly irrational stuff even if it's just "attraction." Being "gay" defines some gay people. Would you reject who you feel you are just to feel safe or not have social problems? Some peope wouldn't.

 

[U2Traveller]

You know religion has its share of persecution and unhappiness...

"It's just simple attraction." People do crazy and seemingly irrational stuff even if it's just "attraction." Being "gay" defines some gay people. Would you reject who you feel you are just to feel safe or not have social problems? Some peope wouldn't.

Exactly...religious people are ALSO persecuted and it IS a choice.

It's just a matter of some people, like you said, WON'T reject what they want or believe for anything.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Ok, to change the subject..read this if you're really bored I just skimmed it, but the religion answer looks interesting

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041104-5.html

 

[U2Traveller]

He said that "no person should impose their religion on society". I'm glad Bush won. I like what he's saying. I think Kerry would've taken us in a totally wrong direction, and I KNOW Bush is good for Utah.

He also said he knows that the American people expect him to be very bi-partisan...exactly. I think he got the message. Hopefully he remembers it.

"To accelerate the momentum of this economy and to keep creating jobs, we must take practical measures to help our job creators, the entrepreneurs and the small business owners." - Yay!

 

[Flying FuManchu]

This was the most interesting statement made by Bush (for me that is) and most convincing yet I'm not convinced yet...

There were -- there was doubt about whether or not those elections would go forward. I'm not suggesting any of you here expressed skepticism. But there was. There was deep skepticism, and -- because there is a attitude among some that certain people may never be free -- they just don't long to be free or incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that. And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved -- proved that this administration's faith in freedom to change peoples' habits is worthy. And that will be a central part of my foreign policy.

And I've got work to do to explain to people about why that is a central part of our foreign policy. I've been doing that for four years. But if you do not believe people can be free and can self-govern, then all of a sudden the two-state solution in the Middle East becomes a moot point, invalid. If you're willing to condemn a group of people to a system of government that hasn't worked, then you'll never be able to achieve the peace. You cannot lead this world and our country to a better tomorrow unless you see a better -- if you have a vision of a better tomorrow. And I've got one, based upon a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.

An interesting point I never thought of.

Otherwise, I hope Bush is able to work with the Dems. Bi-partisan... LOL, I'll believe it when I see it. LOL. Not saying its impossible but if he wants to pass his measures, he's gonna have a lot of problems from the dems, especially with tax reform, social security, and health care.

 

[U2Traveller]

Altogether I think we made a good choice.

I even felt peace about it afterward.

 

[BVS]

You know religion has its share of persecution and unhappiness...

"It's just simple attraction." People do crazy and seemingly irrational stuff even if it's just "attraction." Being "gay" defines some gay people. Would you reject who you feel you are just to feel safe or not have social problems? Some peope wouldn't.

Please read my whole post. I mentioned religion. Some people are born into theirs, some find it later in life but no matter what it's CHOICE that keeps you there. But what comes with that a choice? Their salvation! So yes you may get persecuted but you are standing up for the salvation of your soul. Now if sexual attraction was choice and there was no salvation or life altering decision to go along with why not just choice the other sex...no harm no foul and you get to save your life. So as I said before the analogy doesn't equate.

 

[U2Traveller]

Please read my whole post. I mentioned religion. Some people are born into theirs, some find it later in life but no matter what it's CHOICE that keeps you there. But what comes with that a choice? Their salvation! So yes you may get persecuted but you are standing up for the salvation of your soul. Now if sexual attraction was choice and there was no salvation or life altering decision to go along with why not just choice the other sex...no harm no foul and you get to save your life. So as I said before the analogy doesn't equate.

Religion is a choice. So is homosexuality. I was BORN LDS. But, I still have to choose it, believe me. It's not easy.

Anyway, I don't get your point. "If sexual attraction was a choice and there was no salvation or life altering decision to go along with why not just choice the other sex...no harm no foul and you get to save your life. So as I said before the analogy doesn't equate." You need to make yourself more clear.

 

[nbcrusader]

Ok, to change the subject..read this if you're really bored I just skimmed it, but the religion answer looks interesting

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041104-5.html

Here is Bush's response to the religion question:

Q Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular, Christian evangelicals and Pentecostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide, it seems, becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, my answer to people is, I will be your President regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no President should ever try to impose religion on our society.

A great -- the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad -- I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you -- you don't have to worship. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is -- that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.

 

[U2Traveller]

Yeah, and keep what he said in mind before you start persecuting religious people now.