News Forum - Two decade-long battle for same-sex marriage in Thailand

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

I did not say it was a religous belief and I find it incredulous that you would want to impose your sexual preference belief and then condemn others for them not wanting you to impose your beliefs on them. 

The fact is it is social norms.  In Muslim countries women are "taught" by social norm that it is "normal" to get married at puberty.  In Nepal, it is the "social norm" for brothers to have sex with each others wives.  in ancient Egypt it was normal and socially acceptable to have public masturbation ceremonies.   In Papeu New Guinea it is normal to have sex with children as young as 6.  In Cambodia one group builds sex huts for teenage girls where they are expected to have sex with different men until they find the "chosen one".  

Now if you asked any of those people in those cultures if they found them strange, they would all likely say no because they were indoctrinated with the culture that said that the behavior was perfectly "normal"   

As I have repeatedly said, this isn't an issue about "equal rights" If it was then a civil union, life partnership or civil contract guaranteeing those rights would be sufficient and I would support that.  This is about "society" by sanctifying and giving the imprimatur of "marriage" to a custom that for centuries and not just christian culture has recognized as a union between 1 man and 1 woman that LGTB behavior is "normal" and encourage people to investigate it.  It is one step in "grooming" future generations.  T.   In the USA there is a constitutional amendment protecting "freedom of religion"  However I would oppose any efforts to have the government suddenly include withcraft, voodoo, the church of Satan, Jeddism and numerous others and give them the same stature as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism.  The same goes for the government by giving LGTB the same name to a union between two people of the same sex vs two people of the opposite sex.  This is nothing more than an effort to slowly brainwash people into somehow viewing LGTB to be just as "normal" This is no different than since the girls in Papa New Guinia are indoctrinated that having sex at 6 is "normal" or in Cambodia having sex with multiple male partners until the "chosen one" is found is a normal practice. 

But what does it matter? Marriage is a word. Why is this a problem if it’s not affecting you? 

[Marc26]

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

I did not say it was a religous belief and I find it incredulous that you would want to impose your sexual preference belief and then condemn others for them not wanting you to impose your beliefs on them. 

The fact is it is social norms.  In Muslim countries women are "taught" by social norm that it is "normal" to get married at puberty.  In Nepal, it is the "social norm" for brothers to have sex with each others wives.  in ancient Egypt it was normal and socially acceptable to have public masturbation ceremonies.   In Papeu New Guinea it is normal to have sex with children as young as 6.  In Cambodia one group builds sex huts for teenage girls where they are expected to have sex with different men until they find the "chosen one".  

Now if you asked any of those people in those cultures if they found them strange, they would all likely say no because they were indoctrinated with the culture that said that the behavior was perfectly "normal"   

As I have repeatedly said, this isn't an issue about "equal rights" If it was then a civil union, life partnership or civil contract guaranteeing those rights would be sufficient and I would support that.  This is about "society" by sanctifying and giving the imprimatur of "marriage" to a custom that for centuries and not just christian culture has recognized as a union between 1 man and 1 woman that LGTB behavior is "normal" and encourage people to investigate it.  It is one step in "grooming" future generations.  T.   In the USA there is a constitutional amendment protecting "freedom of religion"  However I would oppose any efforts to have the government suddenly include withcraft, voodoo, the church of Satan, Jeddism and numerous others and give them the same stature as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism.  The same goes for the government by giving LGTB the same name to a union between two people of the same sex vs two people of the opposite sex.  This is nothing more than an effort to slowly brainwash people into somehow viewing LGTB to be just as "normal" This is no different than since the girls in Papa New Guinia are indoctrinated that having sex at 6 is "normal" or in Cambodia having sex with multiple male partners until the "chosen one" is found is a normal practice. 

It is normal

You are just an old white guy with outdated views

 

Although I willing say, Although your views are outdated, they've been pretty respectful, unlike some other posters

So I will give you kudos for that

 

[Soidog]

4 hours ago, Marc26 said:

You are just an old white guy with outdated views

Why is this term seemingly seen as a catch all insult? What is wrong with being an old white guy? What has the colour of skin got to do with it?  Isn’t it racist to use such language? You are better than that @Marc26
 

I feel it’s an insult to white people to use such a term and is bordering on a “cancel culture” catch all phrase aimed at silencing older white people only.

As I posted the other day. Society is increasingly being polarised. You are either with us or against us. Why can’t people just debate the issue?  You conceded @longwood50was respectful, so why not debate the points  respectfully?

As you will see, I disagree with @longwood50 on this but I don’t want to shut him up. I want to debate his point of view; a view held by millions of people, many of which are certainly not old white guys, but younger people who go around beating gays to pulp. Many are also from Middle Eastern, African and Asian countries and hence not white either. 

[Marc26]

36 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Why is this term seemingly seen as a catch all insult? What is wrong with being an old white guy? What has the colour of skin got to do with it?  Isn’t it racist to use such language? You are better than that @Marc26
 

I feel it’s an insult to white people to use such a term and is bordering on a “cancel culture” catch all phrase aimed at silencing older white people only.

As I posted the other day. Society is increasingly being polarised. You are either with us or against us. Why can’t people just debate the issue?  You conceded @longwood50was respectful, so why not debate the points  respectfully?

As you will see, I disagree with @longwood50 on this but I don’t want to shut him up. I want to debate his point of view; a view held by millions of people, many of which are certainly not old white guys, but younger people who go around beating gays to pulp. Many are also from Middle Eastern, African and Asian countries and hence not white either. 

Because it's old white guys with outdated views that impose their beliefs on others 

More so than any other group in the Western world 

[Soidog]

8 hours ago, Marc26 said:

Because it's old white guys with outdated views that impose their beliefs on others 

More so than any other group in the Western world 

Do you have any links for that data or is it just your opinion? 
 

Come on please. You form that opinion based on the fact you most likely meet and converse with more white guys than you do other races. Most likely you feel those older than you and with different experiences and a baseline to start from disagree with you. To then conclude anyone who is white and older and has a different view is more likely wrong, simply for being white and older is absurd. I know many much younger people who are of many ethnic backgrounds, including white and hold views which are utterly insane to me. But I don’t collect them in to a single ethnic or age group and try to shut them down. 
 

I’ve picked up on this Marc, not to have a go at your views, which as I have said, I largely find myself agreeing with, but to counter this narrative that just because you are an older white westerner, you have somehow had your day. Your experience counts for nothing. You hold no opinions worth listening to. At what age do you think this happens? What next, remove the right to vote once you reach 60,65,70?  I’m asking a deliberately flippant question as I believe it’s in keeping with your statement above.  
 

The fact is that generally, people don’t like change. People like stability and a world they can understand and comprehend. It’s natural that older people will be more settled in that mindset. It takes effort to shift those opinions. If not, we keep heading down this road of polarisation and extremism. This is what got Trump elected, what made the U.K. vote to leave the EU and could lead the a French to elect Le Pen at the weekend. It simply doesn’t help either side of the “debate” in the long run. 

[Marc26]

15 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Do you have any links for that data or is it just your opinion? 
 

Come on please. You form that opinion based on the fact you most likely meet and converse with more white guys than you do other races. Most likely you feel those older than you and with different experiences and a baseline to start from disagree with you. To then conclude anyone who is white and older and has a different view is more likely wrong, simply for being white and older is absurd. I know many much younger people who are of many ethnic backgrounds, including white and hold views which are utterly insane to me. But I don’t collect them in to a single ethnic or age group and try to shut them down. 
 

I’ve picked up on this Marc, not to have a go at your views, which as I have said, I largely find myself agreeing with, but to counter this narrative that just because you are an older white westerner, you have somehow had your day. Your experience counts for nothing. You hold no opinions worth listening to. At what age do you think this happens? What next, remove the right to vote once you reach 60,65,70?  I’m asking a deliberately flippant question as I believe it’s in keeping with your statement above.  
 

The fact is that generally, people don’t like change. People like stability and a world they can understand and comprehend. It’s natural that older people will be more settled in that mindset. It takes effort to shift those opinions. If not, we keep heading down this road of polarisation and extremism. This is what got Trump elected, what made the U.K. vote to leave the EU and could lead the a French to elect Le Pen at the weekend. It simply doesn’t help either side of the “debate” in the long run. 

I don't disagree with any of that

And when I say "older white guys " I'm mostly generalizing about a generation, which white guys had, without a doubt, the most power

 

And sorry, I see that generation as way more negative than any positives they may have added

It was a ton of backward thinking

And, by the way, a pretty fxuked up and dysfunctional time, if you really disect it 

 

I think the world is way better off than it was back then

[Soidog]

5 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

I don't disagree with any of that

And when I say "older white guys " I'm mostly generalizing about a generation, which white guys had, without a doubt, the most power

And sorry, I see that generation as way more negative than any positives they may have added

It was a ton of backward thinking

And, by the way, a pretty fxuked up and dysfunctional time, if you really disect it 

I think the world is way better off than it was back then

Yeah I agree with a lot of that Marc. But hasn’t that view of “older” people always been the prerogative of the young? Back in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s there were a whole host of action groups from American Civil Rights to Flower Power to Punk to CND, all were largely younger people who all wanted a “better world”. 
 

When I was 10-15 I recall thinking what a mess my parents and grandparents had made of it all. wWorld wars, Cold War, atom bombs, starvation in Africa. My generation was going to do much better. Well we have. Progress in technology and medical treatments have been astonishing. Significant improvements in Human Rights, LGBT rights and the end of the Cold War . However, that was all done without criticising the “failures” and opinions of the past. It was just changed by action. Todays “younger” people want to shut down and attack the views of the older generation without having any really firm and practical ideas on how to achieve their utopian world. They also focus their rhetoric in the countries where the older people passed laws of freedom of expression and the right to peacefully demonstrate as they do. 
 

Linking back to the topic of LGBT rights, where is the concerted effort to attack those countries who will still flog or imprison you for being gay? How many young people go on holiday to places like Dubai? How many young people travel to Thailand where the oppressive regime turn water cannon on  students who simply want a better future and where LGBT rights are tolerated rather than enshrined in law? This younger generation are no better or worse than the previous. Just as the older generation are no better or worse. Todays young will be tomorrows old and they will face the same criticisms. 

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

Yeah I agree with a lot of that Marc. But hasn’t that view of “older” people always been the prerogative of the young? Back in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s there were a whole host of action groups from American Civil Rights to Flower Power to Punk to CND, all were largely younger people who all wanted a “better world”. 
 

When I was 10-15 I recall thinking what a mess my parents and grandparents had made of it all. wWorld wars, Cold War, atom bombs, starvation in Africa. My generation was going to do much better. Well we have. Progress in technology and medical treatments have been astonishing. Significant improvements in Human Rights, LGBT rights and the end of the Cold War . However, that was all done without criticising the “failures” and opinions of the past. It was just changed by action. Todays “younger” people want to shut down and attack the views of the older generation without having any really firm and practical ideas on how to achieve their utopian world. They also focus their rhetoric in the countries where the older people passed laws of freedom of expression and the right to peacefully demonstrate as they do. 
 

Linking back to the topic of LGBT rights, where is the concerted effort to attack those countries who will still flog or imprison you for being gay? How many young people go on holiday to places like Dubai? How many young people travel to Thailand where the oppressive regime turn water cannon on  students who simply want a better future and where LGBT rights are tolerated rather than enshrined in law? This younger generation are no better or worse than the previous. Just as the older generation are no better or worse. Todays young will be tomorrows old and they will face the same criticisms. 

Your beautifully worded paragraph which depicted the current status of this govt’s tolerance of  lgbt  right’s that aren’t enshrined by Thai  law was a middle ground attempt in discussing this topic!

Thai law makers have for hundreds of years struggled with this ! Why! Its not because of skin color or age  ! Thai’s are rooted in moral values historically,  ,unless there is more support in the legislature it will continue to be as it is.

As the BP article said public sentiment isn’t often so “liberal”.
 

In 2013, the Bangkok Post said that "while Thailand is viewed as a tourist haven for same-sex couples, the reality for locals is that the law, and often public sentiment, is not so liberal."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Thailand

[longwood50]

18 hours ago, Marc26 said:

It is normal

You are just an old white guy with outdated views

You call them "outdated"  I call them traditional.   One only has to examine other cultures where the public becomes "educated in and socialized" into what are the accepted norms and values.  As mentioned some cultures allow sex between adults and childen as young as 6.  Now you would say "that is outrageous"  Yes it is.  This entire debate is about where society draws it line.  On a bell shaped curve one side of the curve is total celibacy.  The opposite end of the curve is total debauchery, hedonism, and unbrildled sexual practices. 

This is entirely about where Thailand and other countries draw their line as to what "they" consider and wish to convey to their culture is acceptable and more importantly normal.  


Take sex out of the equation, and put marijuana in its place.  Once the government sanctions its use, the entire mindset of drug use changes.  Suddenly smoking marijuana is totally acceptable, condoned, even promoted.  Take Thailand with Ladyboy's.  You do not see other countries with the same number of ladyboy's per million as you do in Thailand.  Why because society here has 'normalized" someone who cuts off their genitals, has plastic surgery to make fake breasts and butocks.   

As repeatedly said, the LGTB community wants to frame this as a "equal rights" battle.  No it is not.  This is all about getting society to not just tolerate, or provide equal protections but to remove all distinction between union between a gay couple and a union between a heterosexual couple.  They term that to be "discrimination"  no it is not discrimination but rather "differentiation" pointing out it is different.  Not any different than when you add the adjective "interracial'  marriage to describe a marriage between two people with different ethnicities. Or using the term biracial to describe a person of two different ethnicities or a couple with differing ethnic origins. 

I am not for denying anyone any supposed benefits or rights and there certainly are legal ways including civil unions or life partnerships.   However I am totally opposed to anything that conveys to future generations that a union between a man and a woman is no different than a union between two people of the same sex.   The goal of the two being call the same is to create the perception in the minds of future generations that gay relationships are "normal"  They certainy are to be tolerated but it is my position I don't want them advocated.  The same would be true if the government was to elevate the status of Louis Farrakhan and the "Nation of Islam" by taking any action that would promote the impression that he and that groups following are "mainstream"  


 

[riclag]

27 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

You call them "outdated"  I call them traditional.   One only has to examine other cultures where the public becomes "educated in and socialized" into what are the accepted norms and values.  As mentioned some cultures allow sex between adults and childen as young as 6.  Now you would say "that is outrageous"  Yes it is.  This entire debate is about where society draws it line.  On a bell shaped curve one side of the curve is total celibacy.  The opposite end of the curve is total debauchery, hedonism, and unbrildled sexual practices. 

This is entirely about where Thailand and other countries draw their line as to what "they" consider and wish to convey to their culture is acceptable and more importantly normal.  


Take sex out of the equation, and put marijuana in its place.  Once the government sanctions its use, the entire mindset of drug use changes.  Suddenly smoking marijuana is totally acceptable, condoned, even promoted.  Take Thailand with Ladyboy's.  You do not see other countries with the same number of ladyboy's per million as you do in Thailand.  Why because society here has 'normalized" someone who cuts off their genitals, has plastic surgery to make fake breasts and butocks.   

As repeatedly said, the LGTB community wants to frame this as a "equal rights" battle.  No it is not.  This is all about getting society to not just tolerate, or provide equal protections but to remove all distinction between union between a gay couple and a union between a heterosexual couple.  They term that to be "discrimination"  no it is not discrimination but rather "differentiation" pointing out it is different.  Not any different than when you add the adjective "interracial'  marriage to describe a marriage between two people with different ethnicities. Or using the term biracial to describe a person of two different ethnicities or a couple with differing ethnic origins. 

I am not for denying anyone any supposed benefits or rights and there certainly are legal ways including civil unions or life partnerships.   However I am totally opposed to anything that conveys to future generations that a union between a man and a woman is no different than a union between two people of the same sex.   The goal of the two being call the same is to create the perception in the minds of future generations that gay relationships are "normal"  They certainy are to be tolerated but it is my position I don't want them advocated.  The same would be true if the government was to elevate the status of Louis Farrakhan and the "Nation of Islam" by taking any action that would promote the impression that he and that groups following are "mainstream"  


 

I like traditional ! It has a historical presence  ! Well said comment!

[astro]

On 4/20/2022 at 4:38 AM, longwood50 said:

The fact that there is only 1 queen is normal, typical, and routine.  To have more than 1 queen would be abnormal.  With 90%+ of the world heterosexual, that is "the norm"  

Right, so it is normal for 6 - 10% of the population to not be hetero.

Good on you, you're getting there.

On 4/21/2022 at 9:38 AM, longwood50 said:

There must be some really deep seated insecurity over having to admit that one chooses a same sex partner vs. an opposite sex partern that causes need for the security blanket" I can't help I am gay" I was born with that and had no choice. 

That's been addressed already: people do not "admit" to have chosen simply because they haven't.

On 4/20/2022 at 4:46 AM, longwood50 said:

And yes, I chose to be attracted to the opposite sex.  I did not find people of the same sex to be someone I was ever physically attracted to. 

Lol, so you just did not feel attracted to the same sex.

That is not choosing, it's predisposition!

On 4/21/2022 at 10:38 AM, longwood50 said:

I guess then I was born to a preference that I like steak, born to a preference that I don't like sweet potatoes, I was born to a preference of Bourbon vs. Scotch, I was born to a preference that blue is my favorite color, I was born to a preference of BMW"s versus Chevrolet, I was born to a preference for slender vs. chubby, 

Don't be silly, none of those are a sexual orientation which is very different to a preference in food or car model.

Edited April 23, 2022 by astro

[astro]

On 4/22/2022 at 8:42 AM, riclag said:

As the BP article said public sentiment isn’t often so “liberal”.
 

In 2013, the Bangkok Post said that "while Thailand is viewed as a tourist haven for same-sex couples, the reality for locals is that the law, and often public sentiment, is not so liberal."

Sentiment is not so tolerant concerning tourist gay couples flaunting in public, generally speaking Thailand is rather prude outside the main cities.

By contrast, acceptance of same sex couples appears to be high.

[Guest1]

1 hour ago, astro said:

That is not choosing, it's predisposition!

Just that this "predisposition" is questioned, as soon it tells "you", that "you" don't wanna fu.. fatties, oldies, big/small boobies, ...., or, even also not really a choice, are a Pedo!  

So, because we definitely have to protect kids, a Pedo has a psychiatric disorder (ok, not in all groups. In one they still get married, in another, they have to serve "needs" till puberty), but gay people, as soon they are carrying the legal age limits, are sane?

Ok with me, anyway. As long both are consensually doing, what they are doing, where is the problem?  Oh, wait: They wanna have everything. Not just the right to live like couples, nope, they wanna have the right, to have kids, seen/called married.

The thing with the kids, usually, is AGAINST their predisposition: Gay people don't breed! (interesting fact, cheaters, however , breed often even better. More and different "input" ;-)

And marriage is a church/government, a man MADE thing. That, at first, was meant to let older man keep and take care older woman. Instead of let the state/church do that, but go for/start over with a younger version!  Way before the west had social insurances schemes. 

Also I see there a much bigger problem, in the Thai legal system, here:

A gender changer (which is not one  who dresses like a woman/man or got boobs, just still has his dick), a male , cutting off the balls and forming with the dick a muff, will still be a male from the id card, passport, seen as one by law. 

That should minimum equally be dealt with!

 

 

 

[astro]

On 4/21/2022 at 10:06 AM, longwood50 said:

I did not say it was a religous belief

Yet you've been posting the typically illogical & irrational 'arguments' used by the US Religious Right, in this thread about Marriage in Thailand.

Good luck from me for the same sex couples with the incoming legislation!

[Shade_Wilder]

Interesting thread; thanks everyone.

While I do respect all members' right to be incorrect on this issue (), or perhaps better to say 'On the Wrong Side of History', there is one constant that I don't understand.

Those who don't agree with Marriage Equality refer to gay people as "They" and "Them", mention alleged nefarious motives/reasons for their behaviour, and give the distinct impression that they have never (knowingly) met a gay person. Is this correct? The views expressed here seem quite... er... 'well-kept' and it would be remarkable to argue in a Forum so long without any first-hand knowledge of the issue, especially when it is so easy to come by.

As I have noted in my previous posts, it was having a direct connection to gay people that made me recognize their rights; I find it hard to believe that anyone who has ever sat down and chatted with a gay person for 30+ minutes could still doubt that being gay is an inherent thing in some people.

And, as a bonus and true to stereotype, gay people are often quite fun, especially at parties.

Those that don't believe in Marriage Equality; find a gay person (there likely is one closer than you think), tell them about this debate, see what they say and ask yourselves if you think that they are lying to you. I would wager large sums that at the end of it, your views on the subject would be open to reconsideration.

Cheers

 

[Rookiescot]

20 minutes ago, Shade_Wilder said:

Interesting thread; thanks everyone.

While I do respect all members' right to be incorrect on this issue (), or perhaps better to say 'On the Wrong Side of History', there is one constant that I don't understand.

Those who don't agree with Marriage Equality refer to gay people as "They" and "Them", mention alleged nefarious motives/reasons for their behaviour, and give the distinct impression that they have never (knowingly) met a gay person. Is this correct? The views expressed here seem quite... er... 'well-kept' and it would be remarkable to argue in a Forum so long without any first-hand knowledge of the issue, especially when it is so easy to come by.

As I have noted in my previous posts, it was having a direct connection to gay people that made me recognize their rights; I find it hard to believe that anyone who has ever sat down and chatted with a gay person for 30+ minutes could still doubt that being gay is an inherent thing in some people.

And, as a bonus and true to stereotype, gay people are often quite fun, especially at parties.

Those that don't believe in Marriage Equality; find a gay person (there likely is one closer than you think), tell them about this debate, see what they say and ask yourselves if you think that they are lying to you. I would wager large sums that at the end of it, your views on the subject would be open to reconsideration.

Cheers

This is absolutely correct. Someone is not gay by choice in the same way someone is not left handed by choice.

I really dont see what the issue is regarding gay marriage. If a gay couple marry it does not affect wider society in any way.

Oh and btw I am an old white guy so feel free to ignore or marginalise my opinion.

[longwood50]

12 hours ago, astro said:

Yet you've been posting the typically illogical & irrational 'arguments' used by the US Religious Right, in this thread about Marriage in Thailand.

Good luck from me for the same sex couples with the incoming legislation

  

As said, society conveys "norms" to its population by its actions.  In Muslim countries marriage at pubery is "accepted", female genital cutting is considered "normal", having multiple wives is considered "normal"  In Papa New Guinea, having sex with children as young as 6 is "accepted as normal"   In neighboring Cambodia building love huts for teenage girls to have sex with many men until they find the right partner is considered "normal" However in atheist Russia Putin banned same sex marriages.  Is that because of his deeply held  "religious beliefs" 

Please tell me when the next group comes along and pleads "discrimination" and wants the government to sanction marriages between 2 men and 2 women, or 3 men, do you favor that and want that "normalized"  When NAMBLA the North American Man Boy Love Association proposes sanctioning marriages between young boys and older men, do you favor that?   

Now you may find LBTB behavior "normal"  I do not.  I am fully open to conveying all legal and property rights to adults but not for society to not just tolerate but openly advocate that lifestyle as "normal"  One only has to look at Thailand where ladyboys have been not just tolerated but accepted.  Suddenly this practice of cutting ones genitals off, having your breasts and buttocks sliced open and stuffed with silicone, their voices altered via surgery, and their bodies injected with hormones is looked upon as "normal"

Sorry, this is not a religious issue.  This is conveying to future generations what is considered normal and acceptable behavior.  No different than taking your shoes off before entering a home in Thailand, or doing a Thai Wai as a sign of politiness.  Neither of those practices exists in other countries but Thailand is communicating to its citizens what it considers acceptable, and normal. 

Again, you and others don't want equal rights, you want the subliminal message conveyed through same sex marriage that "it is normal"  Words convey a message and meaning.  You have twins, they can be fraternal, identical, or  heteropaternal.  All are twin, but they appropriately point out "they are different"  You can have a married couple that is described as biracial.  That identifies that the couple is "different" than one that is not biracial.  The same is true for same sex unions.  Call if something that provides the same benefits and guarantees but don't try and pass off that a union between a man and a woman is "identical" to a union between two people of the same sex.  They are different, and that designation should be duly noted. 

[longwood50]

20 hours ago, astro said:

Don't be silly, none of those are a sexual orientation which is very different to a preference in food or car model.

You are the one that is silly.  There is no "gay gene" that predisposes someone to be gay.  If that were true identical twins would have the same sexual preference.  They don't.  

Sexual attraction is no different than why I look at a slender woman and find her more attractive than one that is obese.  It is no different than why some men look at a woman with large breasts and find that more sexually appealing than others.  Some men find women with large lips seductive while others do not.  Some men find women with large buttocks sexy.  Others like myself do not.  We certainly are not "born" that way.  We observe and find what we find attractive.  

I don't know why you and many others cling to this notion that somehow you had no choice.  That people are just pre-destined to be gay.  Is there really the need for the mental crutch to somehow validate a behavior.  It is as if they are making an excuse, or rationale for the behavior.  What the heck is wrong with saying, hey sexually I find myself attracted to people of my same sex.   Is there that much insecurity in the lifestyle choice that an excuse for it is necessary? 

[riclag]

30 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

You are the one that is silly.  There is no "gay gene" that predisposes someone to be gay.  If that were true identical twins would have the same sexual preference.  They don't.  

Sexual attraction is no different than why I look at a slender woman and find her more attractive than one that is obese.  It is no different than why some men look at a woman with large breasts and find that more sexually appealing than others.  Some men find women with large lips seductive while others do not.  Some men find women with large buttocks sexy.  Others like myself do not.  We certainly are not "born" that way.  We observe and find what we find attractive.  

I don't know why you and many others cling to this notion that somehow you had no choice.  That people are just pre-destined to be gay.  Is there really the need for the mental crutch to somehow validate a behavior.  It is as if they are making an excuse, or rationale for the behavior.  What the heck is wrong with saying, hey sexually I find myself attracted to people of my same sex.   Is there that much insecurity in the lifestyle choice that an excuse for it is necessary? 

Hopefully legislators here won’t be convinced to give “  full legal acceptance “ to lgbtq .

Supporters and activists keep trying to re invent the wheel by saying its predetermined , when its not.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene

[astro]

2 hours ago, longwood50 said:

You are the one that is silly.  There is no "gay gene" that predisposes someone to be gay.  If that were true identical twins would have the same sexual preference.  They don't.  

Your reading comprehension is letting you down again:

I haven't said anything about a gay gene, I have pointed out that a food preference cannot be compared to a sexual orientaion.

It doesn't matter if a "gay gene" has been found or not.

Identical twins also aren't always both right-handed or left-handed.

Now, tell us it's a 'choice'!

[astro]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

Supporters and activists keep trying to re invent the wheel by saying its predetermined , when its not.

Just because no gay gene has been found, doesn't mean sexual orientation is a choice.

Have you "chosen" to be hetero?

I am sure for some there is a degree of choice, but for most gays their attraction for the same sex is something which has been there as long as they can remember.

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

Hopefully legislators here won’t be convinced to give “  full legal acceptance “ to lgbtq .

Supporters and activists keep trying to re invent the wheel by saying its predetermined , when its not.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene

So there is still a chance to beat the gay out of them?

Jesus wept.

So by the same logic we could beat the hetro out of you?

[astro]

4 hours ago, longwood50 said:

What the heck is wrong with saying, hey sexually I find myself attracted to people of my same sex.   Is there that much insecurity in the lifestyle choice that an excuse for it is necessary? 

This is the third time you pose this question, let me answer it once again:

There is nothing wrong with saying one is attracted to the same sex (with a few geographical exceptions on the world map, where one better kept quiet), saying it wasn't a choice is not an excuse but a statement of fact.

Why ask to start with, are you often challenged about your heterosexual orientation, such as: have you chosen it, and why, what has lead you to this lifestyle choice, etc.

Next up would be questions about reasons why one would choose to fall in love with someone from a different race, what excuse is there to choose such an "abnormal" (your choice of a term) relationship.

Edited April 24, 2022 by astro

[Marble-eye]

George Melly was once 100% gay but drifted into heterosexuality and when asked to explain the difference he said that he prefered heterosexuality because you could see the persons face.

[longwood50]

16 hours ago, astro said:

Identical twins also aren't always both right-handed or left-handed.

You just proved my point.  If things such as being right handed vs left handed were predetermined by DNA then they would always be the same.  The same is true for being "gay" it is just like choosing the left hand vs the right ' A CHOICE" a preference.