How incredibly rude

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

You didn't answer my question so I didn't read the rest of your response. Did you make a conscience decision to like women rather than men?

I apologize for failing to answer the question directly with a definite answer.

So yes, yes I have made a conscious decision and choice to like Women and not Men.

And just for the record then I here and now again make my decision and my choice that I do want to be a heterosexual and not a homosexual.

In fact I have known several if not many people who declare them selves as homosexual (or as Gay) and some have been my friends and some have sought out sex and I decline, as I might associate with such persons but I do NOT participate with them.

And I do know a number of Lesbian Ladies who I some times hang out with, and drink with, play pool, but no hanky panky.

So IMO, this 'choice' implies that you could have decided to be homosexual. You could have gone either way?

 

[VoteJP]

Reply.

So IMO, this 'choice' implies that you could have decided to be homosexual. You could have gone either way?

I do say that anyone who exercises a free choice can chose to go either way, and I do have a free will.

Of course I do not want to get overly personal here as many posters like to turn the discussions into a personal affront, and especially against me.

It certainly seems obvious that homosexuals must believe that anyone can chose to be Gay or Lesbian since most or very many of them will proposition any one within their zone.

And back to the thread subject then I agree that it is being "rude" and inappropriate to be asking people about their sexuality, and the Colleges that makes such request on their applications are out of line.

An earlier posting of mine says that rejecting the "Don't ask Don't tell" policy was not a well informed idea, but now I would say that to be more polite and respectful then we need it to be like this = Do not ask, and only tell if one really wants to tell.

Because as our "True Blond" declared in the OP = it is rude to ask.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

So IMO, this 'choice' implies that you could have decided to be homosexual. You could have gone either way?

I do say that anyone who exercises a free choice can chose to go either way, and I do have a free will.

Of course I do not want to get overly personal here as many posters like to turn the discussions into a personal affront, and especially against me.

It certainly seems obvious that homosexuals must believe that anyone can chose to be Gay or Lesbian since most or very many of them will proposition any one within their zone.

And back to the thread subject then I agree that it is being "rude" and inappropriate to be asking people about their sexuality, and the Colleges that makes such request on their applications are out of line.

An earlier posting of mine says that rejecting the "Don't ask Don't tell" policy was not a well informed idea, but now I would say that to be more polite and respectful then we need it to be like this = Do not ask, and only tell if one really wants to tell.

Because as our "True Blond" declared in the OP = it is rude to ask.

So you could have gone either way, gay or straight. Implying that you have/had the potential to be attracted to men rather than women. Right? To say that it was a conscience decision for you (and anyone) to be attracted to women implies that at one point in your life there was the potential for you to have decided to be attracted to men. You're implying (IMO) that anyone could have chosen to be gay right? Isn't there also an implication that you could decide today that you wanted to be attracted to men? So...we're all bi? How very Freudian of you

And BTW, I have indeed met gay people that seem to think they they can/should flirt/they to pick up anyone; gay or not. BUT, a) these people were very young, high school b) these people represent a VERY small minority if the gay people I know and c) there exists heterosexual people that seem to think they they can/should flirt/they to pick up anyone. So you maybe shouldn't base your little ideas about gay life style on your obviously limited experience.

 

[VoteJP]

Hi.

So you could have gone either way, gay or straight. Implying that you have/had the potential to be attracted to men rather than women. Right? To say that it was a conscience decision for you (and anyone) to be attracted to women implies that at one point in your life there was the potential for you to have decided to be attracted to men. You're implying (IMO) that anyone could have chosen to be gay right? Isn't there also an implication that you could decide today that you wanted to be attracted to men? So...we're all bi? How very Freudian of you

I did not make such conclusions, and you are projecting here.

What I will say is that sex is an animal instinct and it is a human weakness to lust, so all through history humans have tried to control our animal passions.

We do know that animals in a cage or zoo will start doing unnatural things because the environment creates an unnatural circumstance.

When I was young we had pet rabbits and pet cats and some times when the chance occurred then the one rabbit would mount the one cat and it was both a male cat and a male rabbit.

I believe in the self discipline of a monogamous relationship as just me and one woman, so then it would make me a she sexual and her a me sexual and no one else included.

Both homosexual and heterosexual imply many sexual partners and not monogamous.

Gay marriage is redefining monogamy, among other things.

Heterosexual
1892, in C.G. Craddock's translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis." The noun is recorded from 1920, but not in common use until 1960s. Colloquial shortening hetero is from 1933. Heterosexuality is first recorded 1900. Heterosexist "characteristic of discrimination against homosexuals" is first attested 1979. Link.

So both homosexual and heterosexual are words meant to describe sex in terms of licentiousness and promiscuity and immorality.

I prefer the ideal of monogamy as the best life decision.

 

[libertytyranny]

I did not make such conclusions, and you are projecting here.

What I will say is that sex is an animal instinct and it is a human weakness to lust, so all through history humans have tried to control our animal passions.

We do know that animals in a cage or zoo will start doing unnatural things because the environment creates an unnatural circumstance.

When I was young we had pet rabbits and pet cats and some times when the chance occurred then the one rabbit would mount the one cat and it was both a male cat and a male rabbit.

I believe in the self discipline of a monogamous relationship as just me and one woman, so then it would make me a she sexual and her a me sexual and no one else included.Both homosexual and heterosexual imply many sexual partners and not monogamous.

Gay marriage is redefining monogamy, among other things.

Heterosexual
1892, in C.G. Craddock's translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis." The noun is recorded from 1920, but not in common use until 1960s. Colloquial shortening hetero is from 1933. Heterosexuality is first recorded 1900. Heterosexist "characteristic of discrimination against homosexuals" is first attested 1979. Link.

So both homosexual and heterosexual are words meant to describe sex in terms of licentiousness and promiscuity and immorality.

I prefer the ideal of monogamy as the best life decision.

I like that statement.

 

[bcp]

Im actually enjoying JPs response in this matter. I almost half agree with most of what he is saying.. ok, a little more than half..
But I do have to comment on this line.

make me a she sexual and her a me sexual

does this imply that you are not finishing the job and are leaving the actual completion of the task at hand to her?

Is this another way of saying,
I got mine, you get yours?

Good posts JP.. for once.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

So you could have gone either way, gay or straight. Implying that you have/had the potential to be attracted to men rather than women. Right? To say that it was a conscience decision for you (and anyone) to be attracted to women implies that at one point in your life there was the potential for you to have decided to be attracted to men. You're implying (IMO) that anyone could have chosen to be gay right? Isn't there also an implication that you could decide today that you wanted to be attracted to men? So...we're all bi? How very Freudian of you

I did not make such conclusions, and you are projecting here.

What I will say is that sex is an animal instinct and it is a human weakness to lust, so all through history humans have tried to control our animal passions.

We do know that animals in a cage or zoo will start doing unnatural things because the environment creates an unnatural circumstance.

When I was young we had pet rabbits and pet cats and some times when the chance occurred then the one rabbit would mount the one cat and it was both a male cat and a male rabbit.

I believe in the self discipline of a monogamous relationship as just me and one woman, so then it would make me a she sexual and her a me sexual and no one else included.

Both homosexual and heterosexual imply many sexual partners and not monogamous.

Gay marriage is redefining monogamy, among other things.

Heterosexual
1892, in C.G. Craddock's translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis." The noun is recorded from 1920, but not in common use until 1960s. Colloquial shortening hetero is from 1933. Heterosexuality is first recorded 1900. Heterosexist "characteristic of discrimination against homosexuals" is first attested 1979. Link.

So both homosexual and heterosexual are words meant to describe sex in terms of licentiousness and promiscuity and immorality.

I prefer the ideal of monogamy as the best life decision.

You're not actually going to address my point are you?

 

[VoteJP]

Hi.

You're not actually going to address my point are you?

That is probably correct, just as you fail to plainly make your point.

My perception here is that you are trying to nicely make it into some affront to me personally instead of an over-view of the subject.

The subject is not about me and this thread is not about me and I have no desire to make myself the point of scrutiny.

But it is nothing personal as I say you have presented your self well in this thread and I liked the interaction.

There really is merit to the title of this thread that asking people about their own sexuality and about a person's personal business is in fact rather rude indeed.

As in a general sense then I say anyone can chose to be "bi" just as anyone can chose not to be, and I would say being "bi" is totally situational or circumstantial as in they are just expressing their lust in whatever way is available or desirable at any given moment, which means the person is just confused or out of control and not bi.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

You're not actually going to address my point are you?

That is probably correct, just as you fail to plainly make your point.

My perception here is that you are trying to nicely make it into some affront to me personally instead of an over-view of the subject.

The subject is not about me and this thread is not about me and I have no desire to make myself the point of scrutiny.

But it is nothing personal as I say you have presented your self well in this thread and I liked the interaction.

There really is merit to the title of this thread that asking people about their own sexuality and about a person's personal business is in fact rather rude indeed.

As in a general sense then I say anyone can chose to be "bi" just as anyone can chose not to be, and I would say being "bi" is totally situational or circumstantial as in they are just expressing their lust in whatever way is available or desirable at any given moment, which means the person is just confused or out of control and not bi.

My point is that if what you're saying is true; that we all consciously decide which gender we are attracted to; then we all (including you) have equal capacity to be homosexual OR heterosexual. But, since you won't answer my question I guess it doesn't really matter. :shrug:

 

[VoteJP]

Hi.

My point is that if what you're saying is true; that we all consciously decide which gender we are attracted to; then we all (including you) have equal capacity to be homosexual OR heterosexual. But, since you won't answer my question I guess it doesn't really matter.

My point was that for a person to truly be free and healthy then we each and all do NEED to make our own choices, but there are many people who do NOT chose and they do NOT make their own choices and as such they are NOT free.

A person (any person) who says they have no choice and their life is run without their own choice, then such a person is entrapped and enslaved.

As like a prostitute (male or female) who says they have no choice but to continue being a prostitute, even if they like being that way, as they will say they like the big money and the wild adventure of it and they like their Pimp, but they say they have no choice as this is what they are - then they are dysfunctional.

So if a homosexual says that they have no choice then they are entrapped and enslaved and not a free person.

And "attraction" is not a legitimate criteria since a married couple are first attracted then later they are repulsed, or cocaine is attractive but everybody is not addicted to the drug, and attraction can be very deceptive or arbitrary or capricious, so attraction is not a legitimate criteria.

The big reason for people who commit suicides is that they feel trapped, and the best way to talk a person out of committing suicide is to give them options and other choices.

Of course this is just my own opinion, and I do believe my opinion is correct.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

My point is that if what you're saying is true; that we all consciously decide which gender we are attracted to; then we all (including you) have equal capacity to be homosexual OR heterosexual. But, since you won't answer my question I guess it doesn't really matter.

My point was that for a person to truly be free and healthy then we each and all do NEED to make our own choices, but there are many people who do NOT chose and they do NOT make their own choices and as such they are NOT free.

A person (any person) who says they have no choice and their life is run without their own choice, then such a person is entrapped and enslaved.

As like a prostitute (male or female) who says they have no choice but to continue being a prostitute, even if they like being that way, as they will say they like the big money and the wild adventure of it and they like their Pimp, but they say they have no choice as this is what they are - then they are dysfunctional.

So if a homosexual says that they have no choice then they are entrapped and enslaved and not a free person.

And "attraction" is not a legitimate criteria since a married couple are first attracted then later they are repulsed, or cocaine is attractive but everybody is not addicted to the drug, and attraction can be very deceptive or arbitrary or capricious, so attraction is not a legitimate criteria.

The big reason for people who commit suicides is that they feel trapped, and the best way to talk a person out of committing suicide is to give them options and other choices.

Of course this is just my own opinion, and I do believe my opinion is correct.

I guess it's my fault for arguing with a 'politician' huh?

 

[VoteJP]

Hi.

I guess it's my fault for arguing with a 'politician' huh?

I suspect you mean that in a negative way, but I see politics and being a Politician as a compliment. Of course I am not officially a true Politician until or unless I actually win an election which I have not done yet. And I do not see our discussion as an argument.

You are posting anonymously so we do not know who or what you are which is fine as I understand how the Internet identities function, but for me myself then I give my real name, picture, website, contact info, and more, so I can not just say or post any kind of stuff because I have to stand behind my words posted here which is why most other "Politicians" do not visit these forums as they can not take the heat.

Posters as your self have far more options and discretion then what I have because I have limited my own choices by me being accountable for what I say and post.

So - you were saying (or implying) that "attraction" is the criteria, as if a person is attracted to the same gender then they have some homosexual capacity, so then what if a long time homosexual finds an attraction to an opposite gender? does that make them as no longer a homosexual? or is that changing into a bi?

I went to a Bar one time and was speaking to this Lady who I did not like at all and I felt no attraction to her at all, but after a few beers then I became very attracted to her big time.

I really do not believe that people are given many choices in this life, and we have to TAKE our choices and in some cases we have to fight for our choices, so I do not disagree when some one says they do not have a choice because I believe such a claim, so then I say they need to find a choice or seek out a choice or options, and far too many people accept a choice-less life.

In fact the Bible declares that God turns people into homosexuals, per Romans 1:24-28, so if God made the people into homosexuals then maybe their choices really are limited, and God's punishments are really just blessings in disguise. So per the Bible it is a blessing to be a homosexual because God chose it for certain people.

I myself am not saying for some person(s) to-be or not-to-be a homosexual or heterosexual or monogamous or celebrate or whatever, as I simply say that no one needs to be trapped or stuck into any such thing, because any one can chose otherwise.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

I guess it's my fault for arguing with a 'politician' huh?

I suspect you mean that in a negative way, but I see politics and being a Politician as a compliment. Of course I am not officially a true Politician until or unless I actually win an election which I have not done yet. And I do not see our discussion as an argument.

You are posting anonymously so we do not know who or what you are which is fine as I understand how the Internet identities function, but for me myself then I give my real name, picture, website, contact info, and more, so I can not just say or post any kind of stuff because I have to stand behind my words posted here which is why most other "Politicians" do not visit these forums as they can not take the heat.

Posters as your self have far more options and discretion then what I have because I have limited my own choices by me being accountable for what I say and post.

So - you were saying (or implying) that "attraction" is the criteria, as if a person is attracted to the same gender then they have some homosexual capacity, so then what if a long time homosexual finds an attraction to an opposite gender? does that make them as no longer a homosexual? or is that changing into a bi?

I went to a Bar one time and was speaking to this Lady who I did not like at all and I felt no attraction to her at all, but after a few beers then I became very attracted to her big time.

I really do not believe that people are given many choices in this life, and we have to TAKE our choices and in some cases we have to fight for our choices, so I do not disagree when some one says they do not have a choice because I believe such a claim, so then I say they need to find a choice or seek out a choice or options, and far too many people accept a choice-less life.

In fact the Bible declares that God turns people into homosexuals, per Romans 1:24-28, so if God made the people into homosexuals then maybe their choices really are limited, and God's punishments are really just blessings in disguise. So per the Bible it is a blessing to be a homosexual because God chose it for certain people.

I myself am not saying for some person(s) to-be or not-to-be a homosexual or heterosexual or monogamous or celebrate or whatever, as I simply say that no one needs to be trapped or stuck into any such thing, because any one can chose otherwise.

I gave up have way through...see you on another thread!