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: 2340

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Little Richard behave effeminate in bodily expressions. What is the word for that behavior. Swedish word is "Fjolla""
"Camp" is the word you are looking for.
I think everyone has covered all the points I wanted to cover in my reply. If I complimented the intelligence of this crowd, would that be vain?

There's a small proportion of the human population that is asexual. So not *everyone* is sexual, but most are.
Thanks for casting asexual people as "genetic abnormalities". With that line of thinking people who are interested in the same sex would have "genetic abnormalities" as they're not advancing reproduction. (They're is a spectrum of sexual desire anyway). [I'm a big supporter of LGBT rights and people to bug off of other people's sexualities or lack of them]

Sorry I'm just annoyed at people who talk about other people as if they don't exist.

I had an asexual roommate in high school. She's a lovely person, I don't think she'd take well to being not a fully realized human being because she's not interested in either gender.
Rocio... I understand the point you're making. However, there is such a thing as the "norm", and to say something isn't normal isn't to say it's bad or inferior. Most people in the U.S. (and perhaps around the world) aren't great critical thinkers or very analytical. In fact, in centuries past, people have been burned alive because their thinking was too progressive. If higher intelligence is slightly recessive, it's because people who had that trait were not "selected for". I think we can both agree that, while "genius" is a fantastic trait to have, it's an abnormality. If it was normal, it wouldn't be called "genius"; it would be called "average".

So I don't think he meant to insult your friend, or asexual people. There is a norm for sexuality, though I think it's great to move away from the norm and accept/embrace the abnormal. Life is like a game of musical chairs: what's normal now can/will be quickly replaced by what we consider "abnormal"... and we may be better off for that.

Maybe a more positive word to use is "unique"... and I don't mean that in a condescending way. What makes a person stand out is what makes them special/valuable/notable/memorable in history.
Not to sidetrack from your general sentiment, but I don't think that the cause of asexuality in any form is known to be genetic in part or in whole, though biology on the whole is most likely a factor.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic. I am not suggesting in any way that sexual orientation is a choice, but simply that the cause of abnormal orientations may not be genetic. I'm behind on the science here, though perhaps it's time for me to do more reading.
I'm going to have to cop out with a bit of a vague reply on this one for now. It's not ideal, but even just through some cursory reading online, I'm starting to get an idea of how far behind the times I may be.

However, I do want to expand a little.

- When we are talking about sexual orientation and sexual identity, we are talking about a broad range of conditions that may all have considerably different causes and factors at play. The significance of genetic factors could vary widely between something like asexuality and homosexuality (as an example).

- Even if we (I) limit the conversation to homosexuality, homosexuality may be a symptom of different factors and may not have a specific, singular cause.

- Some studies indicate a strong role of genetic and epigenetic factors that play a role in homosexuality, but I am not aware of any that demonstrate a specific gay genotype. It is possible that a homosexual individual could be genotypically heterosexual, but phenotypically homosexual. I'm treading on thin ice with the scientific validity of that statement, but I don't know else to word it. the blueprints said hetero, but there was an error in the construction phase?

A number of studies have looked at prenatal and even early postnatal development for sources of where sexual orientation could have been affected.

Perhaps because of this person's young and impressionable age, this overrode the initial 'program' and reprinted a different orientation.

I don't know. That's certainly a very interesting (though unfortunate) case. I've wondered before if abuse can create a stronger and more enduring impact than that of one's natural sexual orientation. In this case of repeated abuse, I wonder if it could cause a negative association to sex with women so strong that it outweighs the positive biological attraction. This wouldn't turn a person gay or anything, but they might find more comfort and even accept sexual interaction with members of the same sex in a compensatory manner.

Well, that's pretty baseless speculation on my part. I have absolutely nothing to back it up with, and I'd wager it's not likely to be true. Just a point of curiosity is all.
I used to use the word "defect" instead of "error" wrt gay phenotype constructed from genotype. I never felt comfortable saying defect, but it took me a while to finally settle on the word "variation". Not that it really matters that much, but still, I don't say "variation" just to sound more politically correct; I actually believe it's more scientifically meaningful.

Even though I'm a heterosexual male, I have a strange belief that the world would be a better place if its chosen leaders were less macho and more feminine. I believe that our testosterone-driven civilization evolved aggressively and much more quickly than it would have without the male dominance, but now it's time to back off and cool down, when possible. The recent discovery that about 1% of the world's males have genes from Genghis Khan makes me worry that perhaps raping and pillaging already has too much staying power in our genotype!

So not to get too far off topic, but yeah, words like abnormal and error have hints of value judgment attached to them, but on the other hand--even though I hope to be non-judgmental and scientific, I still can't help but apply my own value judgment in a strangely opposite direction wrt traditional male dominance. (But I do CRINGE when I hear ignorant statements from female leaders about human brains in mice, or how fruit fly research is generally a waste of taxpayer's dollars.)

By the way, I'm very appreciative that you mentioned the word "epigenetic". I tend to feel that the field of epigenetics will eventually explain more about variations in sexual development and behavior than genetics. Epigenetics is already essential for more thoroughly understanding cancer, stem cell ontogeny, and much other biology.
There's a lot of asexual people out there...but it isn't their choice. Its just the facts of life. Nobody wants to have sex with them. Now thats sad.

Its one thing to have the choice to have sex and choose not to use it..its quite another when you don't have that choice.

So are there any sexually altruistic people out there who would be willing to help these poor souls out?
Being asexual does not mean no one will have sex with you. It means you are not interested in having sex with other people.
Or at all?


Blog Posts

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 0 Comments

Forever Cursed

Posted by Nerdy Keith on February 25, 2015 at 8:00pm 2 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service