So when I was working today my openly gay boss came back while doing some back of the house work, and naturally we engaged in some conversation. I just found out he was gay the other day, and I just couldn't believe until he told me.  A matter of fact, he even called himself a "fagot" never ever thought I'd hear that.  I have theory onto where the word fagot came from.  Possibly humorous in nature or offensive, but that's a different story for a different day.

Anyways, I am a new born Agnostic I guess you could say, still kinda fence sitting betweem Atheism and Christianity, but I feel more drawn to Atheism every day...and Gary's case only solidifies it.  Gary was once married, had kids, and in fact married to this woman longer than he was openly gay.  He says always kinda knew he was, but just kinda ignored...but his mid life crisis rolled around and thats when he told her what was up.  I can't really imagine what it would be like to go through all that, on his wife, kids, and even Gary. It'd be difficult situation, especially considering they were married for 15 years.  

Anyways so me and Gary got into the topic about Gay marriage...and we both agree it's not so much the word married that grinds our gears, but rather the "rights" part of it.  Why shouldn't a partner be beside each other when one is about to pass?  Especially after 30 years of partnership, these kinda things came from Gary, and I heartfully agree with him.  Because marriage is a religious thing, and chances are even in East Tennessee, a homosexual person isn't going to be super religious (however with the slight growing acceptance of homosexuality among some denominations, that could change).  So therefore the word marriage is meaningless, it's simply the rights part of it.  He said he could care less about a tax deduction. Love is love.  Agreeable.

Anyways I'm getting off topic, so I told him I'm accepting of gay, lesbian people in my community, however I can't quite wrap my head around the bisexual thing...and he said that's good but disagreed about the bisexual thing and stated "Lot's of creatures are homosexual, take the mental part out of it...what are we Nathan?" I just looked at him, confused as if he was insinuating something "Animals!"
So true so I reply "Yeah but the difference between us and dog is the ability to reason..."
then this truly was an interesting " I guarantee you evolution wouldn't fail on this one, if I go out there grab...well your an employee, if i go out there and grab a male customer by the balls, he's going to get an were technically bisexual by nature" By the way this mainly came up because I asked him if he enjoyed sleeping with a woman...apparently he did, because as far as I'm concerned, pressure is pressure. be it being a woman's part, male's buttocks. or your own holy hand.

But the notion that we are all born bisexual kinda left a note on my mind. I'm in fact a heterosexual male, and gary stated while we may not like mentally, our body most likely would not be able resist such actions, and reactions...what do you guys think? and sorry I know this is a mouthful.

Views: 2352

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If it was digital, mine would probably read as a blinking 12:00. That sounds like it means something, but probably doesn't.

'Binary' might have been an alternative word choice. Just throwing that out there while procrastinating on diving back into work.
Binary is a better choice of words.

Human sexuality not being binary sounds true to me. Spectrum maybe is a good word for it. Could it said to be gradual or leveled?

Spectrum is the most common term that I have heard. Continuum also comes up. Alfred Kinsey created the Kinsey Scale, which put sexual orientation on a wider scale than just binary sexual orientation. I think it went from 0 - 6, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. Asexuals were scored as an X. I think asexuality should have actually been descried on a separate axis instead of just being assigned a single value, but that's neither here nor there, I guess.

By modern standards that is probably overly simplistic, but it think it was an important shift in our thinking on human sexuality.

I think we can also regard sexual definition on three levels in this conversation:
- how we self-identify (which may break down in to how we identify ourselves to ourselves and how we identify ourselves to society)
- how society identifies us as individuals
- how we are defined by our biology

I think our biology defines our sexual orientation and identity in the most concrete sense. I mean, if I was a completely gay man, I could sleep with as many woman as I liked, but that wouldn't change my sexual attraction towards other men.

The thing is, we don't really understand the biological mechanisms for varied sexual orientations, at least not the the point that we could create some sort of litmus test.

So we rely on how people self-identify, but there are all sorts of psychological factors in play. Gay stay in the closet because they are intimidated or can't come to terms (amongst other reasons). People identify as bisexual because of how it reflects on their image, or because they want to resist definitions and convention (again, amongst other reasons). So we can't always rely on how people self-identify.

So some people cast others into sexual roles; either the roles they want them to fulfill, or simply the roles they perceive them in.

I kind of think it would be nice if you could just get a quick (optional) blood test that would return some magic scientific result. "Here you go sir: you read 64% heterosexual inclination, 27% homosexual inclination, and 9% sometimes-I'd-rather-just-drink-beer-and-eat-a-fat-juicy-steak-while-watching-the-game inclination."

All I'm really saying is, we probably aren't going to get the sort of clear cut answers on some questions we'd like, at least not in the immediate future. It may be that every individual exists in their own unique spot on some hypothetical sexuality spectrum once all aspects are taken into consideration. It's hard to say how people would be dispersed in such a system.

For the time being, we are probably just going to round people off to the closest fitting sexuality based on the limited information we have available. One might be able to find statistical data regarding the Kinsey Scale or the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid to see roughly how the population is distributed.
Love in marriage is abnormal. Love and marriage have only been connected in the last few centuries, and not even in all cultures.

I would say the opposite, it is the illusion of eternal love which has damaged everything!
I was shocked after reading all these post that know one said they where Bi-sexual.

So let me break the mold here. Not only am i bisexual but my wife is too.

Does this mean we cheat on each other, not at all. Does this mean we are genetically predisposition to be bisexual, not at all. We both came to the realization around the 7th grade that we both liked men and women. We both have had our experiences in life that confirmed our thoughts. Our first real encounter with the opposite sex was each other oddly enough. we didn't reconnect until about 2 years ago. So when telling each other about our experiences we learned alot about how we came to our realizations about sexuality.

Each person may not be bisexual but we all have the thought of it at one time or another. By simply being apart of this conversation you are thinking about it right now. It isn't wrong to think about being with the same sex. Regardless, of whether or not you grew up in a religious setting, religion has made the argument that it is wrong and is shown by the ultimate population standard that it is wrong. Sad to think this way but understandable, we are what we what we learn and what others teach. Most kids raised by lesbian or gay married couples often do not have a problem with gay or lesbian couples or the act of being gay but that doesn't mean they will be gay or lesbians. So does this mean everyone is a little gay? people may not admit it but you are attracted to the opposite sex. I look at other men and think well he is quite the good looking man much like i do with women. This doesn't mean i want to have sex with them. But all humans are capable of noticing if the same sex is good looking , thus we can assume that we find the same sex just as desirable based on looks alone.

Now for the misconception that just because people are gay or lesbian means they want you sexually. i personally have a very strict code for who i would sleep with from the same sex. it is safe to say that this man must be what people in general find extremely sexy or attractive. i can safely say i have been to bed with men most women would drool over but, most lesbian women can say the same thing about women i would drool over.

I would never sleep with a friend or a friend of a friend just for the sake of doing it because they where bisexual.

I have only been involved in a orgy just once and it involved gay and straight people. People that were straight received oral sex from men and women that night so the misconception that you would never try it is based on the fact that you have never been presented with the option in such a situation.

just a thought based on my own experiences, not to question your masculinity guys.
That is an interesting story! Thanks for sharing!
I find it interesting that many people have ideas on this but base their ideas on what they think not what an actual bisexual thinks or a gay or lesbian thinks. Many will argue there is no way all people are bisexual because they would never want to see themselves as being one. Everyone has the tendencies it's just the way humans and animals are.
I'm with James. I am heterosexual because I was created this way through evolution.
Most people who adamantly refuse the fact they chose to be gay or straight usually has their facts wrong. Many gays or bisexual likes the idea we are biologically made to be a certain way because it makes it easy to explain why they are gay. Like some Jews are self hatting many gays actually hate the fact they think different. i have many friends that didn't figure out they where gay until they hit their twenties and was able to experiment. Not even a quarter of my friends have known since they were very young. In my experience and many of my friends we agree that being bi or full on gay comes from a attraction based on thoughts not a gene stuffed somewhere deep in the DNA. Everyone does have a tendency and i stick by that. We can see it in animals, especially dogs.

I dont think that bisexuals would be biased to this discussion. If anything i understand both sides of the fence better then you ever could. Maybe that's a problem in today's society. Everyone likes to have a opinion on subjects whether they can relate to it. It's not a bad thing at all to have a opinion but some subjects will be forever out of reach.

We can slide into a discussion on how your mind works and how generations of brainwashing has lead us all to believe things about ourselves that just aren't true. But that's another discussion.
I don't assume to much because you have said without saying you are not bisexual nor gay. And it is your opinion that you would be less biased to this discussion simply to make your points seem more credible. Which is standard argument skills. Nothing wrong with that.

As far as doing studies about certain subjects and coming to understand them, maybe on some subjects but certainly not when it comes to being gay or being a different color and the discrimination that goes with both.
My intelligent university graduate lesbian sister is quite anxious about science finding a genetic link to homosexuality... for once such a gene is found, parents are bound to start trying to select for offspring without the gene, especially as genetic decisions are becoming more and more maintream in our society...

One must be careful what one wishes for.

After years of pondering, my sister has finally come to the realisation that our outrageously totalirian father played a huge part in our sentiments about men.
I can pretty much garantee that whenever such a gene is found, even it were 'declared' to be illegal, parents with money and bigotry could easily find clinics to do remove that possibility.

In the field of genetic definitions of humanity, until the ethical codes are refined and genetic codes garanteed to belong to the person they come from instead of on the open market as now seems to be the trend, I would prefer we slow the knowledge process down. At this stage of our humanity and understanding of ethics and genetics, nothing good can come of it.

We are on the cusp of selecting offspring for such petty things as hair and eye color, when more important traits are gentically resolved, I see no social trend preventing abuse in this area.


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service