Would you rather be heterosexual?

shay_562

OK, whoa. Wasn't expecting to actually spark off anything approaching a debate. I just read back over my original post, I didn't mean to come across anywhere near as depressed and introspective as I did - I'm actually a pretty cheerful, well-adjusted person. Hmm_, Damien, thanks for sticking up for me, but like Zillah said, I wouldn't have posted it in a public place if I didn't want anyone to disagree with me or judge what I had to say. And to answer his/her original question: even though it's clearly impossible to compare, there's a chance I'm stronger or happier or a better person or whatever-the-**** because I've been through some ****. It's equally possible that me being happy and comfortable in myself now is something I could have experienced 4 years earlier, and I'd be just as strong and happy, but with less emotional baggage. Worse, there's just as many people who come out of it a screaming bag of neuroses, or who don't come through it at all because it's too hard. So maybe it's a betrayal of myself, but I don't think I should have to go through that **** - I don't see it as "giving in" to want to have what everyone else had.

Zillah

LiouVille wrote:

You know nothing about him, nor the life he's lived.

Yes I do...as much as he's commented on and thats all I referred to.

Maybe if he was able to talk more openly about things like this, to his so called community, instead of being expected to toe the line and put a brave face on it

Are you even listening to me? I couldn't give a flying toss about "towing the line", and I've absolutely nothing to do with the gay community. I shared a thought that occured to me while reading his post.

And for people who claim to be defending the right of people to express themselves you seem awfully quick to land on me like a ton of bricks for daring to share an opinion that you don't agree with.

Shay_562 wrote:

I'm actually a pretty cheerful, well-adjusted person.

Well Im happy for you then.

there's a chance I'm stronger or happier or a better person or whatever-the-**** because I've been through some ****

I'd be suprised if you weren't tbh.

shay_562

Well Im happy for you then.

Excellent. I'm happy for me too.

damien

Get a room kids. All this heavy petting in public isn't polite.

Hmm_Messiah

I'm actually a pretty cheerful, well-adjusted person. Hmm_, Damien, thanks for sticking up for me, but like Zillah said, I wouldn't have posted it in a public place if I didn't want anyone to disagree with me or judge what I had to say

For the record I wasn't sticking up for you in particular, you come across as an articulate adult person able to defend himself. Mostly I just don't understand people's apparent need to judge people in every minutia. Of course I judge people too, but then I am aware of it and try to lessen how often.

Off topic, slightly: I do some literacy tuition and a colleague mentioned the other night that she has a student who is not progressing and in fact seems unable to recognise any "sound" when he sees letters/words. She finished by saying "its terribly sad isn't it" I asked her "but is it really, for him? " and she thought about it and changed her mind. We both see language as an extraordinary gift and pleasure - reading, wrting etc but we presumed that "for" him. He did find it sad that he couldn't do specific things, but its unlikely its sympathy he wanted from his tutor. Not sure I expressed that well but maybe you get the point.

Finally putting Hmm & Damien in such close proximity is against the laws of nature.

Stay well adjusted, like comfortable underwear

PAX

MicraBoy

Who is this Hmm_Damien person anyway?

damien

MicraBoy wrote:

Who is this Hmm_Damien person anyway?

An ignorant prick who talks too much.

Hmm_Messiah

Well Damien has just said who he is so I guess I should describe me now?

Boston

Zillah wrote:

You should be stonger than that. You sound so sure of yourself, you've faced so much and stood tall regardless, and still you'd happily go back and give in if you could? It seems like a betrayal somehow, a betrayal of all you went through. You're probably a much better person for it.

You don't know any of this, and you're persuming to know it. Your attitude seems to be that being gay is just this absolutely positive experience which builds character through trials that test our very being. You forget that somepeoples trials are harder then others, and the just because you can bear yours and come out better for it on the other side, doesn't mean everyone can.

On and I'd never call you ignorant Damien.

shay_562

Get a room kids. All this heavy petting in public isn't polite.

Yes, god forbid people actually be civil to each other.

For the record I wasn't sticking up for you in particular,

Fair enough. Any thanks and goodwill are cheerfully withdrawn.

An ignorant prick who talks too much.

Well Damien has just said who he is so I guess I should describe me now?

Kids, kids, there's no need to fight. You're both ignorant pricks who talk too much.


(I kid, in case that wasn't clear. Not trying to start a flame war here. They're never fun)

Hmm_Messiah

Quote:
For the record I wasn't sticking up for you in particular,


Fair enough. Any thanks and goodwill are cheerfully withdrawn.

No offence, just "sticking up " for guys got me in no end of trouble in gym in school.

Sapien

dublindude wrote:

Hello,

I hope I'm not intruding here

I know the whole concept of a "cure for gayness" is ridiculous, but if there was one (ignore the science etc.) would you have liked it if your parents had injected you with it as a baby?

I know you are probably very happy with your life now, but would you like to have grown up hetero?

Apologies for the weird question. It's something I've always wondered (I live on Georges Street so I'm quite exposed to the gay community.)

PS There is no malice in this post.

The question is fundamentally meaningless - it poses an impossible hypothesis. To have been born with a different sexual orientation would be to have lived a different life and become a different person. Our personalities, psyches and wishes are contingent on the meagrest aspects of our experiences. Sexuality affects ones development in a number of important ways, especially in childhood when awareness of oneself as being outside of the norm can have profound impact.

Effectively, what you ask is "would you like to be someone else". Anyone who answers positively to this is unhappy in themselves, and though they may identify sexuality as being the cause of this unhappiness, such things can never be known.

It can be sensible to ask: "Are gay people generally less fit to lead happy lives than those straight?", but phrased as by the OP - there can be no meaningful answer.

zippo22

Speaking as an heterosexual man, if I could change I'd like to be a lesbian please.

Zillah

LiouVille wrote:

You don't know any of this, and you're persuming to know it.

Your attitude seems to be that being gay is just this absolutely positive experience which builds character through trials that test our very being. You forget that somepeoples trials are harder then others, and the just because you can bear yours and come out better for it on the other side, doesn't mean everyone can.

I find that rather ironic.

Not to mention utterly innacurate.

AARRRGH

Sapien wrote:

The question is fundamentally meaningless - it poses an impossible hypothesis. To have been born with a different sexual orientation would be to have lived a different life and become a different person. Our personalities, psyches and wishes are contingent on the meagrest aspects of our experiences. Sexuality affects ones development in a number of important ways, especially in childhood when awareness of oneself as being outside of the norm can have profound impact.

Effectively, what you ask is "would you like to be someone else". Anyone who answers positively to this is unhappy in themselves, and though they may identify sexuality as being the cause of this unhappiness, such things can never be known.

It can be sensible to ask: "Are gay people generally less fit to lead happy lives than those straight?", but phrased as by the OP - there can be no meaningful answer.

OK. But forget about the BS intellectualism for a second -

Would you rather of grown up having a "normal" life?

Zillah

dublindude wrote:

OK. But forget about the BS intellectualism for a second -

Hahaha...classic.

damien

Sapien wrote:

Our personalities, psyches and wishes are contingent on the meagrest aspects of our experiences. Sexuality affects ones development in a number of important ways, especially in childhood when awareness of oneself as being outside of the norm can have profound impact.

What a load of bollox. Awareness of one's identity starts in adolesence not childhood. Awareness of one's sexual orientation doesn't happen for the majority of people until puberty. The other thread on coming out ages shows this.

While the basic functions of humans are to reproduce/have sex, I am quite surprised that people think their sexuality is such a big thing in their lives. If sexuality is such a big thing then how come everyone that's single isn't in counselling? Or is it just gay men?

Hmm_Messiah

Sapien wrote:

The question is fundamentally meaningless - it poses an impossible hypothesis. To have been born with a different sexual orientation would be to have lived a different life and become a different person. Our personalities, psyches and wishes are contingent on the meagrest aspects of our experiences. Sexuality affects ones development in a number of important ways, especially in childhood when awareness of oneself as being outside of the norm can have profound impact.

Effectively, what you ask is "would you like to be someone else". Anyone who answers positively to this is unhappy in themselves, and though they may identify sexuality as being the cause of this unhappiness, such things can never be known.

It can be sensible to ask: "Are gay people generally less fit to lead happy lives than those straight?", but phrased as by the OP - there can be no meaningful answer.

A question on boards being fundamentally meaningless? Is that possible?

Your post comes across as a pathetic convluted attempt at intellectualism, and leaving that aside is flawed in so many ways.Damn I'm judging now! but then I guess you don't allow care for mere mortals opinion

Sad to see some one make such "logical rational argument" then signing off with words from ritual Magick. I'm guessing you never did get to draw back that veil did ya.

Shlt. bollix was so uch more succinct

Namaste

shay_562

If sexuality is such a big thing then how come everyone that's single isn't in counselling? Or is it just gay men?

Of course sexuality's a big thing, especially during teenage years. Perhaps not to the extent that Sapien is suggesting, but definitely a key factor in how we develop.

the_syco

Sapien wrote:

"Are gay people generally less fit to lead happy lives than those straight?", but phrased as by the OP - there can be no meaningful answer.

I agree here. OP: think that straight people grew up with a nice f*cking life, with a smooth f*cking childhood? Do you for some stupid reason think that by being straight, you automatically have a better life? Some gays proberly have had a great life, great childhood... and lots of straight people have had sh|te childhoods, so nothing is so "happy". Being "normal" won't automaticlly make their life better.

It may make it a whole lot worse.

Zillah

the_syco wrote:

think that straight people grew up with a nice f*cking life, with a smooth f*cking childhood? Do you for some stupid reason think that by being straight, you automatically have a better life?

Chill the fùck out. His point is valid. Everyone puts up with shÌt. Everyone has the chance to have a fùcked up life. Being queer adds another layer of complication, a layer that can cause a lot of shÌt for people. His point isn't stupid, it makes perfect sense.

Hmm_Messiah

the_syco wrote:

I agree here. OP: think that straight people grew up with a nice f*cking life, with a smooth f*cking childhood? Do you for some stupid reason think that by being straight, you automatically have a better life? Some gays proberly have had a great life, great childhood... and lots of straight people have had sh|te childhoods, so nothing is so "happy". Being "normal" won't automaticlly make their life better.

It may make it a whole lot worse.

Jesus the guy only asked a question! and he nowhere suggested that being "gay" was the only source of unhappiness; he didn't mention any other of the many possibilities because that wasn't the question. He was asking would you choose straight if you could. I don't want to put words in his mouth but it would seem this question stemmed from his hearing so many stories of how difficult it was being gay in ireland, in youth, all the crap people endured etc.

If that's the case its not really his fault if thats what he has heard, its gay people who have told those stories.

He never mentioned straight lives being automatically better, easier maybe. And on that point its what has been said by many gay people, including people responding to his post. I see nothing stupid or "invalid" about it

Or prejudiced: in fact he said "hey I am getting this impression ..and I'd like you guys to inform me...." If only more people did that about things they didn't know well or understand.

Nevyn

Would you rather be heterosexual?
no.

You could have been bisexual and still ended up with kids damien.m

dublindude "Normal" is Waaay to subjective and what is normal for you in your life is not the standard for anyone else.

I do see Sapiens point of view that you can not isolate one thing about a person, thier life and life experiece change it
with out changing them as a whole; be it them not grazing thier knee as a child to thier eye colour to watching a film on a certain afternoon to thier sexualitly.

Some people have more difficult lives then others and that may have nothing to do with thier sexual orination or thier gender prefernce in partners.
Yes what people survive and endure shapes them, but I have meet intolerant arsehóles
who have lead a charmed lifes and they have been hetrosexual/homosexual/bisexual .
Not eveyones rites of passage with thier sexuality and sexual identiy is tramantic, some are but that is not always because they are homosexual/bisexual.

Anyone that is miserible in themselves and thier lifes and has focused it all
on the one thing they think marks them as different that they can not change and blames all thier woes on that has issues and a way to go in dealing with them.

Sapien

dublindude wrote:

OK. But forget about the BS intellectualism for a second -

Would you rather of grown up having a "normal" life?

If you would prefer that people answer your questions without engaging their intellects - you should say so at the beginning. Though, I suppose it should be obvious, given that you clearly don't engage yours in the asking.

To repeat my criticism of your question: I could not have grown up any other way than I did and still have become me. Do you see?

Zillah wrote:

Hahaha...classic.

Your searing wit once again lances my soul, oh Zillah.

damien.m wrote:

What a load of bollox. Awareness of one's identity starts in adolesence not childhood. Awareness of one's sexual orientation doesn't happen for the majority of people until puberty. The other thread on coming out ages shows this.

While the basic functions of humans are to reproduce/have sex, I am quite surprised that people think their sexuality is such a big thing in their lives. If sexuality is such a big thing then how come everyone that's single isn't in counselling? Or is it just gay men?

Awareness of ones sexuality begins when? Fascinating! I shall alert all of the leading academics in the relevant fields about this forthwith, as they have somehow managed to remain ignorant of this fact, not to mention the fact that one ceases to develop psychologically upon reaching adolescence.

You do not believe that being gay can have psychological ramifications?

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Your post comes across as a pathetic convluted attempt at intellectualism, and leaving that aside is flawed in so many ways.Damn I'm judging now! but then I guess you don't allow care for mere mortals opinion

Sad to see some one make such "logical rational argument" then signing off with words from ritual Magick. I'm guessing you never did get to draw back that veil did ya.

Being as eager as you are to diagnose the pathetic and convoluted nature of my intellectualism, could you go on and be so kind as to delineate exactly how my argument is flawed? (Just so that I can be sure that you are not just another one of the idiots who maraud this site so that they may lash out at anyone whose submissions make them feel inadequate.:) )

Any questions as to my magickal attainments should be posed on an even vaguely relevant forum.

damien

Sapien wrote:

Fascinating! I shall alert all of the leading academics in the relevant fields about this forthwith, as they have somehow managed to remain ignorant of this fact, not to mention the fact that one ceases to develop psychologically upon reaching adolescence.

Academics who you've yet to readily reference. I'm sure you can do a few google searches to back yourself up but if not you can always tell us to find it ourselves via another bitchy little comment. By the way, I'll ignore the additional ditty you added to the end to distract from the fact that you are totally wrong.

Seriously, we've had far better pretentious sounding, word of the day regurgitating, snotty acting insecure twats here before. You're not new or interesting. Be a dear and try a different tact.

Hmm_Messiah

being as eager as you are to diagnose the pathetic and convoluted nature of my intellectualism, could you go on and be so kind as to delineate exactly how my argument is flawed? (Just so that I can be sure that you are not just another one of the idiots who maraud this site so that they may lash out at anyone whose submissions make them feel inadequate. )

Any questions as to my magickal attainments should be posed on an even vaguely relevant forum

What an inspired reply. Your "magickal attainments" are mentioned as you choose to tell some one that their question is meaningless. You affirm this with pretentious intellectualism and strict adherence to what you see as reasonable and rational. In that context I find it strange you quote in your sign meaningless words from an invented ritual which is convoluted, conrtived, false and ineffective - Kind of like pot calling kettle pot black in my book. Except that the OP is not without meaning, (I doubt equally thats it keeps him up nights)

as to idiots maruading sites.... an unnecessary inclusion in you post. And the suggestion that your post would make any one feel inadequate.... I'd of thought the opposite far more likely.

You'll understand if I decline to respond further and return to topic(woefully flawed as it is) I'll leave you to your....maruading

(has my pretentiousness matched yours? nah... you win)

ChrisCross

What would be the difference if I was heterosexual?

I'd have not met half the friends I have
I'd be less confidant and sure about myself
and I'd probabaly never know the joy of a drag show

the list is actually endless.
If I were heterosexual

well..

I wouldn't be me.
Why would I choose that?

See what cracks me up is most heterosexual people actually think some LGBT identified people WANT to be hetero. As you can see from the thread, quite the opposite. Most of my mates are actually very heterophobic. Yes. They don't like heterosexuals. Not one bit. (note, I dont share their sentiments)
The idea of being hetero or whats called heteronormative (even shadowing anything from heterosexual society) is a bad thing.

Would you rather of grown up having a "normal" life?

See "normal" isn't always better. And social norms only work for straight white males anyways. Depends on your take on normal.
Theres my 2 cents.

Also, the idea that you could inject yourself with something to make someone not gay. .... you definately could have come up with a better one than that. A time machine or something.. but an injection to make you not gay! It's something out of a bad DC comic!
Also, it's what's giving you all the bad reactions, if anyone even begins to suggest homosexuality is a disease they (rightly) will be jumped on and slated for that opinion. Shanging something with a drug makes people think even on a subconsious level that you were saying homosexuality was a disease.

Hmm_Messiah

ChrisCross wrote:

See what cracks me up is most heterosexual people actually think some LGBT identified people WANT to be hetero. As you can see from the thread, quite the opposite.

Also, it's what's giving you all the bad reactions, if anyone even begins to suggest homosexuality is a disease they (rightly) will be jumped on and slated for that opinion. Shanging something with a drug makes people think even on a subconsious level that you were saying homosexuality was a disease.

A lot of generalities there mate.

Who says thats what straight people think? some straight people maybe. none of the straight people i know (and who offered an opinion)

And I personally believe that yes some LGBT people would actually want/prefer to be hetero.

Personally I'd possibly prefer the whole straight/wife/kids/married thing if it was an option (and in as much as it is one I may still choose it)

And nope my subconscious at least didn't associate an injection with disease...more the comic book idea. Maybe you meant "makes some people think even on a ..."

ChrisCross

ok ok, insert the word some in that in many places.
That's my argument though.

And I personally believe that yes some LGBT people would actually want/prefer to be hetero.

I'm sure some straight people don't want to be who they are either.

I'm sure some people wish they could have kids and marry but I'd say they wish more to do so without changing their sexual oreintation or life! (if that was what you were kinda getting at)
Being gay is a big(ish - depending on how much you want it to be) part of who you are and if you don't like being gay (which is pretty much what the question is, if you could would you change?) well then you don't like who you are all that much. I'm not generalising, anyone who would say yes to that question IS dissatisfied with their life or themselves. That's all the question can really determine.

I mean, any straight people wanna be gay/lesbian/bi sometimes?
hell sometimes the opposite sex are bound to piss you off and you go "damn, I really wish I was gay sometimes"...
I guess thats about as much as I could relate to that question...

but being a Bisexual.. well.. I'll never get off the fence for anyone!!! Best of all worlds.

Sapien

damien.m wrote:

By the way, I'll ignore the additional ditty you added to the end to distract from the fact that you are totally wrong.

Seriously, we've had far better pretentious sounding, word of the day regurgitating, snotty acting insecure twats here before. You're not new or interesting. Be a dear and try a different tact.

This embodies nicely how I see you people. It's amazing how often I post on this site only to have my ideas completely ignored by people scrambling to demonstrate that they're unphased by my prolicious indulgences. Who is more preoccupied by literary style here - I, who could, I suppose, be accused of verbosity, or you, who feel it is more important to point out that you don't care that I write well than to answer a question of central salience to the topic at hand?

As to referencing academics - I have no pretensions of being well versed in the field. Your reference in contending the point, however, was another thread on this forum. Forgive me if I don't acquiesce to such ex cathedra authority. Your refutation was lazy, weak and disdainful. I felt it condign to wave a hand at the fact that such questions fill the professional lives of a great number of intelligent and highly qualified people, and cannot be answered with such facile abruptness.

Now, unless you have something germane to say, don't waste my time.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

What an inspired reply. Your "magickal attainments" are mentioned as you choose to tell some one that their question is meaningless. You affirm this with pretentious intellectualism and strict adherence to what you see as reasonable and rational. In that context I find it strange you quote in your sign meaningless words from an invented ritual which is convoluted, conrtived, false and ineffective - Kind of like pot calling kettle pot black in my book. Except that the OP is not without meaning, (I doubt equally thats it keeps him up nights)

Sigh. I repeat - I shall happily meet you in the Paganism or Paranormal forum at dawn, twenty paces, your choice of weapons - but I am not going to apologise for my choice of signature in a thread to which it pertains in precisely no way.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

as to idiots maruading sites.... an unnecessary inclusion in you post. And the suggestion that your post would make any one feel inadequate.... I'd of thought the opposite far more likely.

Of course. I must admit to being in awe of your skillful use of poor syntax, elliptical spelling and meaningless periphrasis to further debate. I will resolve to learn from you rather than becoming bitter and irrationally hostile.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

You'll understand if I decline to respond further and return to topic(woefully flawed as it is) I'll leave you to your....maruading)

I understand all too well.

Before you leave me to my big words you will note, I take it, that you have at no point described how my arguments are flawed, or responded to my ideas in any way. Why exactly am I corresponding with you? What are you bringing to this discussion? Why should I care what you think? Are these my feet?