Are you BORN gay?

dan719

Boston wrote: »

They could call it the chicken dance for all I care. However, whats being proposed in Ireland is not "equal" in all but name. If you wish to educate yourself on this matter, see the other active thread.

Well Boston, nice to see you again isn't it. What did you go, click on my last post, completely misinterpret it and then make a show of yourself? Oh yes you did, let's see why.

I hypothesised that the obsession with having marriage as opposed to civil partnership was due to a desire to say 'up yours' to the religious community. I never commented on the current civil legislation partnership proposed to be passed by the dail. But wait, it gets better.:cool:

The blood ban isn't homophobic. The reason attempts to reverse the ban have been so ineffective is due to this fundamentally flawed belief.

I never said it was, in fact I was outlining the reasons to Shay 562 why it wasn't just before you barged in.

Good for you, then don't adopted, in fact someone as hung up about their sexuality as you probably should be allowed to have a dominant influence on any child's up bring. Gay people raise children in Ireland, it isn't new. Off the top of my head I know two Bi-Sexuals with children and another man who had a family then decided he was gay. I'm a guardian to my ten year old nephew, a role which would in theory require me to raise him if anything happened to his parents.

Here is a nice bit of personal abuse, oh you are in a foul mood arn't you B. I never said anything about Gay people raising children full stop. I said I do not believe that the state should allow a situation where two gay partners are allowed to adopt together. That is my belief and I am entitled to it. Not only that, but it happens to be the dominant belief of the current government. Ergo it ain't happening as of now. Also, I am legal guardian to my siblings, please do not try to suggest I cannot have a positive impact on their lives.

How exactly do you feel straight people don't? I've never done anything in a pub or club which heterosexual didn't do. I've made out on dance flours, I've kissed over a pint, and I've held hands while chating. Most of the time it isn't a problem, though every now and again some Muppet feels this is shoving my sexuality into their face.

I never said what you described was 'shoving your sexuality in someones face'. I then gave examples of situations where I had done similar with no ill will directed towards me. And if me doing what you describe is not 'shoving my sexuality in faces' (am I the only who LOLs reading that) then I can hardly claim heterosexuals doing the same is in someway indecent can I.;)

Survey was flawed, he pointed it out. So what?

Well for starters, I felt it was completely insignificant, and all he achieved was to create an awkward moment for all involved, why bother?

I'm over in the rugby forum at the mo, if you want to come over and attack my posts without reading them again, feel free.

Boston

dan719 wrote: »

Well Boston, nice to see you again isn't it. What did you go, click on my last post, completely misinterpret it and then make a show of yourself? Oh yes you did, let's see why.

I hypothesised that the obsession with having marriage as opposed to civil partnership was due to a desire to say 'up yours' to the religious community. I never commented on the current civil legislation partnership proposed to be passed by the dail. But wait, it gets better.:cool:

I'm not too sure I follow what you're talking about but for reference you said

Would civil partnership not be acceptable, as in one identical to marriage in all but the name?

I pointed out that thats not whats being proposed here in Ireland.

I never said it was, in fact I was outlining the reasons to Shay 562 why it wasn't just before you barged in

.

I was agreeing with you.

Here is a nice bit of personal abuse,

The impression you've created is that you're hung up about your sexuality and wish to repress it. Is this not the case?

oh you are in a foul mood arn't you B. I never said anything about Gay people raising children full stop. I said I do not believe that the state should allow a situation where two gay partners are allowed to adopt together

.

Why would you feel that way if you didn't believe gay people make for bad parents?

I never said what you described was 'shoving your sexuality in someones face'. I then gave examples of situations where I had done similar with no ill will directed towards me. And if me doing what you describe is not 'shoving my sexuality in faces' (am I the only who LOLs reading that) then I can hardly claim heterosexuals doing the same is in someway indecent can I.;)

Maybe it would help matters if you explained what you meant by shoving it peoples faces.

Well for starters, I felt it was completely insignificant, and all he achieved was to create an awkward moment for all involved, why bother?

I'm over in the rugby forum at the mo, if you want to come over and attack my posts without reading them again, feel free.

why not point it out? No need for awkwardness. Also Rugby? What the hell are you talking about? I've been posting on this forum for years before you even joined this site. I didn't follow you here.

shay_562

dan 719 wrote:

I hypothesised that the obsession with having marriage as opposed to civil partnership was due to a desire to say 'up yours' to the religious community.

Yeah, that's why I want fully equal marriage rights. 'Cause I'm 12 :rolleyes: If civil partnership with all the same benefits and protections as marriage is introduced, that would be acceptable (though I'd find it preposterous that 'religion', an an amoprhous entity, could lay such total claim to the word 'marriage' when civil, non-religious marriages already exist), but that's not what you brought up; you specifically said 'civil partnership is on the way', which sure as hell seems like it refers to the current proposed legislation. Then two posts later you say "I never commented on the current civil legislation partnership proposed to be passed by the dail." See, the probably with being a snippy little contrarian is that you eventually disagree yourself into a corner For another example, take this:

Also, I am legal guardian to my siblings, please do not try to suggest I cannot have a positive impact on their lives.

Then why automatically rule out gay adoption in all cases? Particularly in cases where, through circumstances such as Boston's outlined, someone in a same sex relationship ends up as the guardian of kids, yet their partner can't be in any way legally involved in those kids' lives? You prickle at the suggestion that you can't be a capable guardian, yet don't think generally that gay couples should be allowed to adopt?

Dude, he wasn't in Stonewall or anything. IMO I felt Stephen was being overly sensitive and could easily have said nothing. You disagree, and are now holding him up as some sort of gay martyr.

I get that it wasn't a huge step for gay rights. All I ever said was that, by stopping the little things like this, you can gradually make a difference to the bigger picture, and that people like you who support the "sit down, shut up and wait for equal rights to fall out of the sky" approach aren't doing anyone any favours.

Boston wrote:

The blood ban isn't homophobic. The reason attempts to reverse the ban have been so ineffective is due to this fundamentally flawed belief.

I'd disagree, as outlined above. I don't think the ban is intrinsically homophobic, in that I don't think they're doing it because getting a gay blood transfusion will turn the populace gay or some such bull****. But I do think the rationale behind it (that gay men who have ever engaged in anal sex, irrespective of any other conditions or circumstances, are too high of a risk to allow to donate) is quite flawed, and given that the IBTS traditionally give **** excuses about it, I continue to find it to be an utterly **** policy.

oisindoyle

The question was ar people born gay and the answer is YES....Thats it ,,end of discussion

Boston

oisindoyle wrote: »

The question was ar people born gay and the answer is YES....Thats it ,,end of discussion

Why? Some people view sexuality as this rigid thing which never changes but from what I've seem, that's the exceptional case rather then the rule. I've encountered too many people who have as some point or another had same sex relationships to believe sexuality is always set in stone from birth. I think a lot more people, given the right circumstances, would be willing to try it if it wasn't for environmental factors, thus I believe the correct environment can encourage homosexuality/ bi-sexuality.

Reflector

Everyone who is born or becomes an Irish citizen should be entitled to the rights enjoyed by all citizens.
This should include forming a state recognised coupling of two people regardless of gender, the right to be considered to adopt children who are in need of loving homes and the right to live free of persecution and prejudice,

I start to bore of these arguements and just wish that it was so. It seems so backward to me now and almost seems as ridiculous as denying women the right to vote because they are too "emotional".

Goodshape

Boston wrote: »

I've encountered too many people who have as some point or another had same sex relationships to believe sexuality is always set in stone from birth. I think a lot more people, given the right circumstances, would be willing to try it if it wasn't for environmental factors

An open mind is great but I'm not sure that a willingness to 'try it' equates to actually having a choice about your sexuality.

I know gay men who can't bare the thought of sex with a woman, and visa-versa for straight friends, -- I'd put this much down to conditioning and I think it can be overcome if desired.

But sleeping with the same sex does not make you gay.

dan719

shay_562 wrote: »

Yeah, that's why I want fully equal marriage rights. 'Cause I'm 12 :rolleyes: If civil partnership with all the same benefits and protections as marriage is introduced, that would be acceptable (though I'd find it preposterous that 'religion', an an amoprhous entity, could lay such total claim to the word 'marriage' when civil, non-religious marriages already exist), but that's not what you brought up; you specifically said 'civil partnership is on the way', which sure as hell seems like it refers to the current proposed legislation. Then two posts later you say "I never commented on the current civil legislation partnership proposed to be passed by the dail." See, the probably with being a snippy little contrarian is that you eventually disagree yourself into a corner For another example, take this.

Civil partnership is a catch all term which in my mind refers to legislation regarding all non-traditional forms of marriage, no matter what the country being discussed. I am not going to comment on Ireland's situation, because to be totally honest, I couldn't give a flying f*ck.

Then why automatically rule out gay adoption in all cases? Particularly in cases where, through circumstances such as Boston's outlined, someone in a same sex relationship ends up as the guardian of kids, yet their partner can't be in any way legally involved in those kids' lives? You prickle at the suggestion that you can't be a capable guardian, yet don't think generally that gay couples should be allowed to adopt?

I said I do not believe that a gay couple should have the right to adopt jointly. I did not bristle at the suggestion that I could not be a good guardian. I responded to personal and childish abuse by Boston that I should have no role to play in the life of any child by stating I believe I have a positive impact on the lives of my siblings. If (touch wood) a situation were to develop where I were to become their legal guardian, I sure as hell wouldn't be agueing that a partner of mine be entitled to some legal rights over them.

.I get that it wasn't a huge step for gay rights. All I ever said was that, by stopping the little things like this, you can gradually make a difference to the bigger picture, and that people like you who support the "sit down, shut up and wait for equal rights to fall out of the sky" approach aren't doing anyone any favours

What rights am I demanding that don't already exist? None. So I am not sitting and waiting. I am quite indiffent towards the current situation in Ireland with regards to 'gay rights'. Of course that migh be because I don't consider one's sexuality to be the be all and end of a person's charecter.

shay_562

dan 719 wrote:

Of course that migh be because I don't consider one's sexuality to be the be all and end of a person's charecter.

Except insofar as it makes one in some way less capable of raising a child.

Boston

dan719 wrote: »

I said I do not believe that a gay couple should have the right to adopt jointly. I did not bristle at the suggestion that I could not be a good guardian. I responded to personal and childish abuse by Boston that I should have no role to play in the life of any child by stating I believe I have a positive impact on the lives of my siblings. If (touch wood) a situation were to develop where I were to become their legal guardian, I sure as hell wouldn't be agueing that a partner of mine be entitled to some legal rights over them.

If you're jointly raising a child, why wouldn't you partner have legal rights over them? In a heterosexual relationship, it wouldn't be unusual at all. I guess it comes down to how you view a same sex relationship, I get the impression you don't view them highly.

Dudess

dan719 wrote: »

What is there to like? The stigma and alienation? Or maybe the tiny selection of 'gay' pubs and clubs? How about the increased risk of early death and disease?

It appears, despite protestations to the contrary, that you have issues with being gay - seeing as you've listed them above.

You say that sexuality isn't a fundamental part of who you are, but then contradict yourself by saying you don't know who you'd be if you were straight? If you truly believed that sexuality were incidental, than you would be you.......but straight. The same mannerisms, tastes and interests, no?

Tbh saying you 'like' being gay sounds like a desire to swim against the tide/be confrontationally counter culture manifested in sexuality. Which is exactly the arguement the 'homosexuality is a choice' crew seem to be so fond of isn't it?:rolleyes:

So because a gay person doesn't have the same feelings about their homosexuality as you have about yours, they're just revelling in "swimming against the tide"?

dan719 wrote: »

Whatever.:rolleyes:

Nice.

hot2def

Dudess wrote: »

It appears, despite protestations to the contrary, that you have issues with being gay - seeing as you've listed them above.

So because a gay person doesn't have the same feelings about their homosexuality as you have about yours, they're just revelling in "swimming against the tide"?

Nice.

woah woah.

you see you just contradicted yourself there, right?

you can't tell him he has issues because he has different feelings about being gay than you, and then point out him doing that to another poster....


People are way too quick to claim "issues" and "self loathing" and "internalized homophobia" in this forum anytime there is a dissenting opinion. Its the "I know you are but what am I?" response, just to shut people up when you don't have another point to make.

Boston

hot2def wrote: »

woah woah.

you see you just contradicted yourself there, right?

you can't tell him he has issues because he has different feelings about being gay than you, and then point out him doing that to another poster....


People are way too quick to claim "issues" and "self loathing" and "internalized homophobia" in this forum anytime there is a dissenting opinion. Its the "I know you are but what am I?" response, just to shut people up when you don't have another point to make.

In this gay though, he has issues with being gay. I wouldn't call it internal homophobia though.

Ps Dudess is straight afaik.

hot2def

Boston wrote: »

In this gay though, he has issues with being gay. I wouldn't call it internal homophobia though.

Ps Dudess is straight afaik.

I think thats pretty patronizing and dismissive. You have never met this person. It is possible to be cynical about society's views of gay people without you having "issues", which is a fairly meaningless term and is often used purely to suggest there is something wrong with you.

Its possible to be comfortable with yourself and gay, and still be disinterested/ambivalent to/anti gay marriage. Its possible to love yourself and still recognise that you DO have and increased risk of early death/disease, and feel and observe the stigma and alienation attatched to being gay.

He doesn't have to be for gay adoption because he is gay. I know I have serious reservation about wether it would be fair for myself and my partner to raise children, knowing from the start that the father would not be present. Now, I don't think people should be prevented from doing so, but for myself I have concerns that I would be making a selfish decision.

dan719

Boston wrote: »

If you're jointly raising a child, why wouldn't you partner have legal rights over them? In a heterosexual relationship, it wouldn't be unusual at all. I guess it comes down to how you view a same sex relationship, I get the impression you don't view them highly.

Okay, here is my particular view of your scenario. A situation develops where a gay male becomes guardian of his siblings. He is also in a relationship. He raises these children with his partner. Then he dies. ( It's swine flu okay?:P) Now would the best scenarion be for these children to be raised by their biological grandparents or other relatives, or by some random dude? Because if the partner were given legal rights of custody, the latter is what would happen.

Personally, I don't view any form of relationship all that highly. I'm twenty years of age for god sake.

shay_562

dan 719 wrote:

Okay, here is my particular view of your scenario. A situation develops where a gay male becomes guardian of his siblings. He is also in a relationship. He raises these children with his partner. Then he dies. ( It's swine flu okay?) Now would the best scenarion be for these children to be raised by their biological grandparents or other relatives, or by some random dude? Because if the partner were given legal rights of custody, the latter is what would happen.

...but that's an argument against any form of adoption by the partner of a biologically linked person. As in, you're not objecting to the fact that the 'random dude' is gay, just that he's not biologically related. That's not an argument against gay adoption, but against adoption in general. By your logic, if a guy becomes the guardian of his younger siblings, his wife shouldn't be allowed to adopt them because then she might end up their guardian. Which doesn't really hold up, because if the kids have been living with this 'random dude' (or dudette) for years before the dreaded swine flu attacks, they might well be better off with him than with some random aunt who doesn't know them but shares a few chromosomes. In the interim, if you're essentially raising a child with their legal guardian and all of you want to make it an official legal arrangement (so that the child doesn't get taken into care or shunted off onto a random relative if swine flu happens), why shouldn't you be allowed to do that?

Reflector

dan719 wrote: »

Okay, here is my particular view of your scenario. A situation develops where a gay male becomes guardian of his siblings. He is also in a relationship. He raises these children with his partner. Then he dies. ( It's swine flu okay?:P) Now would the best scenarion be for these children to be raised by their biological grandparents or other relatives, or by some random dude? Because if the partner were given legal rights of custody, the latter is what would happen.

Personally, I don't view any form of relationship all that highly. I'm twenty years of age for god sake.

He wouldn't be some random dude, he might have raised them for years. helped them with homework, comforted them when sick and done all the responsibilities of a parent therefore essentially being closer to the children then any other person including aunts/uncles and grandparents.

Dudess

hot2def wrote: »

woah woah.

you see you just contradicted yourself there, right?

you can't tell him he has issues because he has different feelings about being gay than you, and then point out him doing that to another poster

That's not what I did (I'm a hetero female by the way) - I said, seeing as Dan came across as so resentful (using rolleyes symbols galore for starters) of Goodshape being glad he's gay by listing the "hazards" of homosexuality and insinuating he simply enjoyed swimming against the tide, I felt I had grounds for believing he appeared to have issues with being gay... and I still do.

People are way too quick to claim "issues" and "self loathing" and "internalized homophobia" in this forum anytime there is a dissenting opinion. Its the "I know you are but what am I?" response, just to shut people up when you don't have another point to make.

My, you're rather presumptuous aren't you?

Boston wrote: »

In this gay though, he has issues with being gay. I wouldn't call it internal homophobia though.

I wouldn't either - more a longing to conform.

hot2def wrote: »

I think thats pretty patronizing and dismissive. You have never met this person. It is possible to be cynical about society's views of gay people without you having "issues", which is a fairly meaningless term and is often used purely to suggest there is something wrong with you.

I don't think what Dan posted indicated cynicism about society's views at all, I think it just looked like "How dare you be glad to be gay? Look at all the horrible things you have to put up with! You're just enjoying the attention! :rolleyes:"
I was actually quite taken aback by the aggression of it. Being cynical about particular societal views of gay people is a different thing altogether, and something I'd understand from any gay person.

Its possible to be comfortable with yourself and gay, and still be disinterested/ambivalent to/anti gay marriage. Its possible to love yourself and still recognise that you DO have and increased risk of early death/disease, and feel and observe the stigma and alienation attatched to being gay.

Sure... Yet Dan's post didn't indicate the above to me whatsoever - it just indicated "I hate being gay and all that goes with it and I resent other gay people not having the same point of view".

I'm only going by what he posted though - I could be wrong. But that is all I have to go on in fairness. It's the nature of Boards.ie.

Boston

hot2def wrote: »

I think thats pretty patronizing and dismissive. You have never met this person. It is possible to be cynical about society's views of gay people without you having "issues", which is a fairly meaningless term and is often used purely to suggest there is something wrong with you.

Its possible to be comfortable with yourself and gay, and still be disinterested/ambivalent to/anti gay marriage. Its possible to love yourself and still recognise that you DO have and increased risk of early death/disease, and feel and observe the stigma and alienation attatched to being gay.

He doesn't have to be for gay adoption because he is gay. I know I have serious reservation about wether it would be fair for myself and my partner to raise children, knowing from the start that the father would not be present. Now, I don't think people should be prevented from doing so, but for myself I have concerns that I would be making a selfish decision.

You've gone right ahead and put 2 and 2 together and come up with five. I think he's hung up about his sexuality not because he's anti/indifferent to gay marriage or adoption, but rather as a result of reading his general comments on being gay, he hasn't said otherwise btw.

dan719 wrote: »

Okay, here is my particular view of your scenario. A situation develops where a gay male becomes guardian of his siblings. He is also in a relationship. He raises these children with his partner. Then he dies. ( It's swine flu okay?:P) Now would the best scenarion be for these children to be raised by their biological grandparents or other relatives, or by some random dude? Because if the partner were given legal rights of custody, the latter is what would happen.

Personally, I don't view any form of relationship all that highly. I'm twenty years of age for god sake.

I don't believe the partner should have automatic rights over the children, however I do believe the partner should have an option to seek rights should that be merited, as the case is with hetrosexual couples. You're example is facetious and isn't my scenario, I stated a case where both partners raise the children. What happens if there are no relatives? The children end up in state care.

mollzer

I am who I am, a human being, a mother, a partner and friend.

I thought I liked men until I first kissed a woman. Then I realised I would never kiss a man ever again!

I now know that I only liked men because thats what good catholic girls are supposed to do regardless of any 'sinful' confusing thoughts; get married and have kids.

I cant answer if I was born gay, as the OP asks, I just know that I adore my partner, and want to spend the rest of my life with her.

Btw no one ever asked me if I was born hetro.....

monellia

I think that the way we are is influenced by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Genes provide the mould, society shapes us.

oisindoyle

monellia wrote: »

I think that the way we are is influenced by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Genes provide the mould, society shapes us.

You are born gay .Thats it ,,,FULL STOP........end of ........

Tricity Bendix

irrefutable logic right there.

oisindoyle

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

irrefutable logic right there.

How kind...

spurious

I think people are born gay but their upbringing determines how they accept it (or not).

Gamer69

Okay my stance on this is a bit odd but bear with me. I dont think your born gay or that you consciously decide to be gay either.

In my opinion its to do with your upbringing. I was raised by my mother, no siblings or anything after my father left when I was 4, which was 16 years ago. My mother is like one of my best friends, but I wouldnt go as far as to say im a mammys boy, but I think having such a strong female influence without any strong male influence for all of a persons life definitely plays a major factor in whether they are gay or not.
That being said, Im not insinuating that all men who are raised solely by their mother will be gay, just to clear that up.
And thats just my own personal theory so please feel free to say if you think Im wrong or right.

Now please take that with a grain of salt as I am still trying to wrap my head around my sexuality and figure out if I'm gay or Bi.

Thanks for reading and hope that it actually made sense to people

DubArk

Gamer69 wrote: »

Okay my stance on this is a bit odd but bear with me. I dont think your born gay or that you consciously decide to be gay either.

In my opinion its to do with your upbringing. I was raised by my mother, no siblings or anything after my father left when I was 4, which was 16 years ago. My mother is like one of my best friends, but I wouldnt go as far as to say im a mammys boy, but I think having such a strong female influence without any strong male influence for all of a persons life definitely plays a major factor in whether they are gay or not.
That being said, Im not insinuating that all men who are raised solely by their mother will be gay, just to clear that up.
And thats just my own personal theory so please feel free to say if you think Im wrong or right.

Now please take that with a grain of salt as I am still trying to wrap my head around my sexuality and figure out if I'm gay or Bi.

Thanks for reading and hope that it actually made sense to people

Both Mother and Father brought me up. Three older brothers, we all played rugby! Plenty of testosterone and a mothers love. Couldn’t disagree more with you mate.

I was born gay! Never had a choice.