Thinking on a Vertical Perspective: Homosexuality

[Pinwheel]

WTF.
I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just saying this is a tough topic that gets people pretty emotional. Geez person.. :56:

You just pop out of nowhere and say it's a wild topic. Actually discuss something that's going on.

I'll read this later, honestly right now that's ALOT for me to read.

 

[thisisthebeat]

You just pop out of nowhere and say it's a wild topic. Actually discuss something that's going on.

I didn't say it was wild. My goodness.
And I did. The topic is homosexuality.
My opinion: Homosexuality is a very tough and sensitive topic that gets people into a very heated debate.

I said this the first time and for some reason you are having a hard time getting that. :35:

 

[Dark-Disciple]

Do you believe in God? The afterlife? Any sort of religious concept?

If this were a theological debate, I'll gladly tell you. Since it isn't, I won't make it one, and I suggest you stop trying to make it one too.

"Different valued opinions."
Semantics wise, you're saying:
"Just becayse each society has different morality doesn't necessarily mean that morality has changed."

You are misinterpreting what I said, and on top of that, you're adding words into my mouth. Please don't do that. It quite hurts your credibility in a discussion.
You seem to keep ignoring the important points of my replies while quickly attacking the less important details, such as syntax and diction.

What I meant, I explained by the given examples I provided.
Morality (of course, assuming my perspective, where I truly believe such exists) is quite different from valued opinions indeed.

This implies that there is an absolute morality. That is, you need to prove the existence of an absolute morality in order to support your claims since the very appearance of morality shifts over time.

As an Absolutist, YES, I do believe there is an absolute morality. Whether you believe a God or a Transcendent Being dictated or created it, power to you. I frankly don't find the need of making a connection according to the argumentation I have used thus far.
Your view of morality obviously makes Morality itself self-defeating. That's the biggest problem I have with relativism.
If morality was based upon man's interpretation then we wouldn't feel as guilty as killing a man as we do in playing 6 innings of baseball instead of 9. If we could easily change the rules at will, what's the point of having rules in the first place?
To this problem, Absolutists such as myself, propose the fact that morality has to be unwavering.
The beauty of morality though is that, through choice, man has the capability to ignore such rules and act according to however they want. Like every good rule, they have the capability of being broken.
Just because we're capable of breaking the rules of morality doesn't mean that the rules don't exist. To the contrary. They are further proven by the persistent breaking of them. Humans are imperfect and equally so, they will continue breaking such rules despite anything. That is why it is so noble to act Morally.

As a moral relativist, I don't believe that there's some transcendent, tangible morality in the universe. When I speak of morality in individual terms, I am, of course, talking about it in intellectual/emotional terms since, in the most literal sense, morality does not exist.

If you wish to ignore the rules, power to you. Saying that morality doesn't exist is quite dangerous.
Doing so would point you as a hypocrite when attempting to make any sort of moral claim, something I'm sure is not in your best of interests.
Here's a key flaw in your argument:
If you wish to argue the justice and rightness of "Tolerating" Homosexuality, you are officially arguing the premise that "Tolerance" is thus inherently good, and that we should follow it. As a relativist, you can't afford to make such claims, because ultimately, you're supporting one ideal over another (the other being injustice)

You can't possibly complain about the breaking of any rule without first acknowledging the power and existence of a rule itself.

So saying that morality has evolved here isn't referring to actual "morality" (since it doesn't exist), nor even the mechanisms in our mind by which we discern morality. It's in reference to the context.
You could, as you do, argue that this implies an unchanging morality. That were the context never to change, we'd all have the same morality.

There has never been a successful society of relativists. Just pointing that out there.
Every society has had a basic foundation of rules upon which individuals are expected to follow. we have always valued virtue over vice. Right versus Wrong.
Just because people wrong each other isn't enough proof to support Relativism. As a society as a whole, we still look down upon those who wrong.

In fact, that's not far off. I at least admit that, yes, were all the context in history to be the same, we'd see that we have similar morality to any other society. Yet, I don't see how that suggests an absolute morality (see next response).

I don't see how moral overlap necessitates the existence of an absolute morality. Were there none, it would be a useless function. The point in discerning between what is "right" and "wrong" is instinctive for the betterment of humanity. Were we to all have entirely different views on this, it would be, as I said, useless.

Tell me of a society in history where:
1) Running away from battle was deemed honorable.
2) Going behind the backs of those who are dearest to you was deemed reasonable
3) Stealing was supported
(etc. etc.)

We have seen a lot of instances in history where wicked men have decided to act these ways. They were never right in doing so though. And if you were the one being affected by any of this, I'm pretty sure you'll equally retaliate if wronged by such methodologies.

Where did you pull this from?

Relativism entails leaving individuals to chose what they deem to be morally right and morally wrong.
Tell me where that is not deplorably irresponsible?
If anyone could choose what is right and what is wrong, on their own accord, we'd have quite a chaotic society

"You don't believe there is an absolute morality, you cannot say what is right or wrong."
It's the equivalent to saying:
"You don't believe in God/the afterlife/meaning in life, you should just give up."
"You only believe ideas like justice exist within the mind of man, you don't deserve to be a part of them."

I never said this has to be about God- just religion. God does not have to be involved for this to be a guise of secularity- intentionally or not.

I fail to follow the correlation you are trying to make here.
My claim is based on the fundamental foundations of absolute morality. If you can't abide by an absolute law, how can you abide by any law whatsoever, if they are constantly "evolving" or changing, as you say.

Comparing a logical claim with two fallacies to attempt to debunk it's logic is a fairly childish form of argumentation. Even sophists would be ashame.

Stop beating around the bush. Tell me how it is possible that an absolute morality exists. Through what means.

I think by now I've done a fairly good job at making this point.
If you're the only one in disagreement, that would be a shame. If you aren't however, I would like to hear from others about it too : )
But by all means, continue if you don't believe I've given this enough justice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this little dissertation is supposed to be like a position paper. You pick a side, defend it, and convince others for why you chose that side in the process.
To dismiss my argument because of our different views on morality is asinine. It goes without saying that if you're going to base it on one view of morality, you need to defend that view and not simply assume it to be true in order to advance your idea. Otherwise, the only people who would agree with your idea are the ones who already believe what you believe- you're preaching to the choir.

I've been doing my best to support my claim. If you don't believe I have, by all means, you have my gravest apologies.
I did support the Absolutist argument during the course of the introduction of my dissertation however. If you failed to read it, or simply forgot about it by the end of the paper, I am sorry to hear, but the information is in fact there.
The further argumentation sprung upon your misunderstanding of my idea. Hence I've tried to clarify such to the best of my ability.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



"thisisthebeat" If you're just going to comment on the topic and not on the article itself, I would very much appreciate it if you rather didn't at all.
We are all quite aware of the qualities of this argument. We are doing our best to debate it here. If you have any comments to make on the article I have compiled, I would very much appreciate hearing them, even if they are compliments on it and not just criticisms. If it's unrelated to the article though, please try not to spam.

"The Pinwheel", Thank you for doing your civil duty in pointing out "thisisthebeat's" mistake. In the further 'wag of your finger' that you have given him, however, I am afraid that you too are flooding the thread with unrelated comments. I think one 'wag' was enough.

 

[Phoenix]

My question to you is, who decides what this "absolute morality" is? Even if it did exist, and I seriously doubt that, who has it and how do I know he's telling the truth?

 

[Dark-Disciple]

My question to you is, who decides what this "absolute morality" is? Even if it did exist, and I seriously doubt that, who has it and how do I know he's telling the truth?

Absolute morality describes the quality of morality as being a natural disposition given and self-evident.
The rest, I believe I have mentioned enough in the replies I have given thus far.

If you guys really wish to attack me further on morality, I would love to write an article solely on that.
This issue however only covers a very small, and almost insignificant part of my article (the introduction), and its sole purpose was to reassure my ability to look down upon those who acted violently against Homosexuals.
This is an article which addresses many factors of the homosexual argument. It would only be logical that we should better focus on those major claims first and foremost.

 

[thisisthebeat]

Seriously, Seriously?!! Ughhh. Whatever.
ANYWAY.

When we look at the sun, are we going to debate if it's right or wrong?

Um..to compare the sun and homosexuality is...really not the same thing. Not even close. We don't question things like the sun because we would die without it. Therefore there's really debate for right and wrong. It's just there and we need it. Homosexuality is not like that. Our life and the existence of the world is not depending on it.

 

[Phoenix]

Absolute morality describes the quality of morality as being a natural disposition given and self-evident.
The rest, I believe I have mentioned enough in the replies I have given thus far.

Natural disposition and self-evident? That sounds highly subjective to me. To a homosexual, their natural disposition would be to seek a same-sex partner. To me, it is not self-evident that homosexuality is immoral.

If you guys really wish to attack me further on morality, I would love to write an article solely on that.
This issue however only covers a very small, and almost insignificant part of my article (the introduction), and its sole purpose was to reassure my ability to look down upon those who acted violently against Homosexuals.
This is an article which addresses many factors of the homosexual argument. It would only be logical that we should better focus on those major claims first and foremost.

I believe the "morality" bit is crucial, though, because if you're argument is truly secular, you must explain where your absolute morality comes from without appealing to something higher.


As for the rest, I just skimmed through it, and you seem to already have a fun debate with G_A, so I'll probably dissect the whole thing tomorrow. I'll do us both a disservice if I respond to the whole thing now.

 

[Masamune-Kakashi]

Here, I'll answer your questions in the order that you posted them:
1- I really do think you should read it. I worked very, VERY hard on it.
2- To answer your question, no, I am not "EMO". Not really sure where or how you came to that concussion. I'm very interested in learning why though.
3- No, I am not Homosexual. It would be a little ironic for me to argue against it if I openly was. I will however say this: I actually do have a lot of homosexual friends, and I have no problems with their friendship. Be it lesbian or gay, I'm not going to discriminate against one's abilities or dispositions because of their sexual orientation, a point I tried making quite evident throughout the course of my article. I argue against homosexuality merely because it isn't just a deplorably harsh lifestyle but it is also one that leads to the needless martyrdom of an individual. If they are willing to go through that, I have nothing to say but wish the fondest of lucks and acceptance.




Every action anyone takes will always affect someone. A lot of people argue that if something isn't hurting anyone, why bother change it.
The problem here is the fact that whatever we do, we are always going to be affecting someone around us.



If you do not, I hope my article helped give you further insights on the argument at hand. We really can't afford to hold a position while being ignorant of why we are doing so.




Like I said, I worked very hard and extensively on it. The problem is really, REALLY deep and I had a lot to cover in order to have a strong standing position on the matter.
I really hope it gave it enough justice.

Ok I still have not read your whole first post, but have just printed it out and will read it at lunch tomorrow.

One thing that I would like to clarify is thaty Yes I do not support Homosexuality, but also do not have any reason to be against it. My Reason right now for having no true stance (Which I will admit is one that I feel most people should take) is very ignorant. I am simply a Heterosexual male who could find no reason for why someone would be interested in the opposite sex and therefore belive that it is some form of social uprising that is occuring.

Even though I do not support it, I take the liberal stace on allowing it to become legal for gay couples to wed. This stance is based off the simple idea that if they feel it will bring them happyness them we should allow them to persue it. Our country is a melting pot of cultures and ideas. We allow scientology carry on and call itself a relegion, so why ban these people from finding what will make them happy.

I will admit to not seeing the negative side of allowing this to happen and perhaps your article will enlighten to them, and untill then will hold strong on my stance.

On the topic of human sacrific I would like to point out that it does still exist. Might I point you in the direction of Al Qaeda suicide bombers? If that is a poor example due to relegious reasons how about Yukio Mishima commiting Seppuku in 1970, attempthing to begin a coupe de'tat in Japan? These are two sepperat areas that people have made themselves in to a sacrifice and shows that it is still around and that people do still belive in it.

Hopefull the next time that I post I will have read your article in full and can comment on some of the ideas that you express in it.

 

[Dark-Disciple]

Natural disposition and self-evident? That sounds highly subjective to me. To a homosexual, their natural disposition would be to seek a same-sex partner. To me, it is not self-evident that homosexuality is immoral.

On the article, I aimed to prove how such disposition truly isn't as natural as most think it to be.

I believe the "morality" bit is crucial, though, because if you're argument is truly secular, you must explain where your absolute morality comes from without appealing to something higher.

I've been trying to do so for quite some time now...

As for the rest, I just skimmed through it, and you seem to already have a fun debate with G_A, so I'll probably dissect the whole thing tomorrow. I'll do us both a disservice if I respond to the whole thing now.

Thank you. Do as you deem best.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Even though I do not support it, I take the liberal stace on allowing it to become legal for gay couples to wed. This stance is based off the simple idea that if they feel it will bring them happyness them we should allow them to persue it.

If you think about the implications of that last statement, I believe you can agree with me that such logic can, in fact, be pretty dangerous.
We can't just simply condone something under the basis that we believe it would make people "happy".
As I mentioned earlier, if such is the only criterion, what is to stop someone for arguing the same exact point in a different, more deterring issue?
This isn't a slippery slope fallacy considering the fact that it does, in fact, happen, and we seriously can't support something because of one reason, and arbitrarily deny it to someone else who argues the same exact points addressed before.


-- Hope you enjoy the article. : )

 

[The Conquerer]

Yes, I've read all of your post.

I agree that gays should have the same rights as everyone else. As long as someone's life style doesn't harm the well being of others, such relationships should be tolerable. I don't know why some people keep using the card that homosexuality is genetic or, the lesser testosterone, the more prone men are to gay acts...

What about those people in the jail? We here all about their butt raping. Their acts are gay however, prior to them going to jail, were they labeled gay to begin with? Probably not. Their natural erge to hump something kicked in (and they didn't care if it was man)...

People turn out gay through how they were socialized (how they grew up or, what kind of experiences had an effect on that person's sexuality) growing up. I want to say it's a choice but, it's more than that. I mean I love pizza however, I wasn't born liking pizza. Is it a choice that I like pizza? No it's not. But it is a choice for me to keep on eating pizza.

Though, I'm definitely not perfect. I use to be repulsed by the sight of gay people when I was younger. But I'm not like that anymore. Still, I am quite annoyed by flamboyant and feminine gay men for some reason (I'm like please act your gender [then again, society instilled into us what appropriate gender concepts are, in a way] so I guess there's no definite here so I'm an ass in a way). I know, I'm a work in progress, but I'm getting there. I'm getting there... So you can flame me if you want, I don't care...

BTW gay does not always equal feminine (I know a masculine gay guy).

I don't keep up with the bible, but the law well one of the main foundations of America (other countries are debating similar matters) is supposed to be on a separation of church and state. So basically, religion shouldn't play a role in how government is ran. All people should be treated equally, and have the same rights and obligations regardless of such and such (don't feel like going into detail).

That's my two cents. Good thread man...

 

[New2Ya]

I agree that gays should have the same rights as everyone else. As long as someone's life style doesn't harm the well being of others, such relationships should be tolerable. I don't know why some people keep using the card that homosexuality is genetic or, the lesser testosterone, the more prone men are to gay acts...

[...]

People turn out gay through how they were socialized (how they grew up or, what kind of experiences had an effect on that person's sexuality) growing up. I want to say it's a choice but, it's more than that. I mean I love pizza however, I wasn't born liking pizza. Is it a choice that I like pizza? No it's not. But it is a choice for me to keep on eating pizza.

When it's a matter of keeping your dick up, I doubt there's much to choose from. That's what I'm thinking. I might be totally wrong about what it feels like to be homosexual, but I doubt they would ever get aroused by a woman.

So it's no choice. Unless we're debating the choice to have sex, but really, if that's the discussion, then we really should question what age we live in. Not having sex because apparently some people believe that homosexuality is not right, is only keeping yourself from being happy.

On the lifestyle thing, how is homosexuality a lifestyle? I don't get it. Being straight is a lifestyle? No one ever talks about that. "Yeah, I'm straight. It's a super duper lifestyle, for sure!"

As for people turning gay by the way they grew up or experienced, there is no such proof for that. Nature vs nurture is always brought up, but there have been no similarities or consistencies between gay people and the way they grew up. Let alone with animals, while we're at it.

People always want to know what is the cause of something, but we should wander why we even seek a cause for a certain type of sexuality. Because if that's what we want, we should question every type of sexuality. Where does pedophelia come from? Where does heterosexuality come from? Bisexuality? Homosexuality? Etc.

Sometimes things just are. And instead of debating the cause, we should just accept the fact that it exists and live on with our lives. I don't see how someone's sexuality changes things for someone else. How it alters a situation.

Why the hell do people get so worked up about someone's sexuality?! Leave them be.

 

[thisisthebeat]

I don't keep up with the bible, but the law well one of the main foundations of America is supposed to be on a separation of church and state. So basically, religion shouldn't play a role in how government is ran. All people should be treated equally, and have the same rights and obligations regardless of such and such (don't feel like going into detail).

That's my two cents. Good thread man...

To be fair, America isn't the only country in the world that is debating this issue.
Many different countries of many different religions are also debating this issue.

 

[Phoenix]

Ok, let's take a crack at this. Bear in mind that I hate you for making this tl;dr post.

~ The fact that we live in an open and “free” society should not be a shocker to anyone. Just look around you; it is the main archetype of thought upon which America was created. This, however, is the very premise that makes it hard to argue any given point that deals with how individuals behave in comparison to any scale of “Right” and “Wrong” behavior. Dealing with Homosexuality is the epitome of such struggle.

Since one can only be swayed one way or another in the argument, considering how these two different positions argue to be correct, it then becomes our responsibilities to be as well informed as possible on the matter. One must keep in mind, however, that when dealing with human beings, the main liability of anyone at hand is to take matters in a humble perspective filled with understanding and willful attention. Any point of violent and heinous treatment or misunderstanding coming from either side is not just beyond the wrong, but it is the GREATEST wrong, for it has led to the current hole upon which we now stand.

Before I begin to develop my last statement there are two of my initial points which must be addressed before moving further into the subject. Being an issue dealing mostly with tolerance, it is only prudent that we start this address by dealing with such.

So what exactly IS Tolerance?

Webster’s New World Dictionary (*fourth edition) defines it as the act of bearing, enduring or putting up with a set belief or idea which someone else holds. This is where the first misconception occurs. Almost immediately following someone’s position against Homosexuality does the victimization of the individual as being “intolerant” occur. And since tolerance is always juxtaposed with “goodness”, it is only clear that intolerance is a horrible thing which one should oppose. The problem here is whether or not the word is being used correctly, for just because we condone an action doesn’t give us grounds to say we are “tolerant” of it. If one agrees and supports what one is given, then there is nothing to tolerate in the first place. Instead, all there is to do is to merely live along with it, and even enjoy it. Tolerance comes only with disagreement in the same way as I must be tolerant of the piercing screech of my baby sister as I attempt to write this article. In this argument, to be tolerant, in essence, is to be willing to put up with something, understandably, until it is finally and passively dealt with. With that in mind, let us continue to the problem of Absolutism.

I differ on your last point. Tolerance does imply putting up with something you might personally dislike, but I think you take it to far when you say "until it is finally and passively dealt with". While that may indeed by the case, you're going beyond tolerance. Tolerance simply means putting up with something. What happens after that is beyond the scope of the word.

Absolutism

As I mentioned earlier, this is a matter ultimately dealing with right and wrong behavior. It is here where the existing opposition would argue against my seeming act of arrogance in trying to define what “Right” is in comparison to what is “Wrong”. To those who would wish to argue that point, I can only humbly ask that you lend me your attentive ears in allowing me a chance to prove my points before I come under opposition. Remember, I have yet to state any position or idea on this article.

I am only here to present an argument, of which I am able to do so according to the general absolutism that the faulty relativists of whom I’m opposing clearly have come to portray as well. What I mean by that is the following:

When it comes to the argument at hand, both sides believe their position to be the right one. If it weren’t so, there wouldn’t be an argument for or against Homosexuality in the first place. It is thus clear that none may hold the relativistic view of each individual’s “goodness” and perceived “rightness” to be the correct, because both opposing views are in disagreement to the point of contradiction. What one side believes to be right, the other sees as wrong in one way or another. It is because of this that only one view must be correct, because the alternative leads to a mere mélange of contradiction and impossibility. Both can’t possibly exist in a relativistic way. Thinking of it in this binomial perspective as a start is not just the simplest, but also the most efficient way to tackle this argument.

While you may have a point, it depends on where you're coming from. Even if every single person was, in essence, an absolutist, he is only one in his own little world. His morals differ from his neighbor's morals.

So while every single human is an absolutist, the world itself is relativistic.

To further expand this idea, it is here that I bring into consideration my first point to be addressed: Hate Crimes.

–There is nothing more putrid, vile, deplorable or morbid in this world than to dehumanize, discriminate or injure the dignity of any human being anywhere. To tolerate an opposing ideology is noble and it thus demands that we act nobly in doing so. As history has proved to us time and time again, the pursuit of any good thing or idea through wicked ways merely prevents the goodness within the case itself, and thwarts it into something rather repulsive; anyone preaching such is thus, equally as disdainful.

Something we must understand is the fact that if a person acts wickedly claiming to follow a correct, good or pure belief, they themselves are the wicked ones. No dogma may claim to be right if it doesn’t follow a right path to acquire goodness.

Consider this: the perversion of everything good in this Earth is the invention of human error. It is thus that I say that to those who have given religion a bad name by acting violently within this argument, I spit upon, for they are the fiends who make quotidian life harder to follow for the rest of us, the faithful ones who wish to tackle this point as passively and as intelligently as possible.

(–It is important to note here, that no relativist may stand with me in condemning such creatures for this itself is absolutist ground. A relativist can do nothing to someone committing a crime of hate, for they who are acting, too believe they are acting correctly regardless of how wicked their methodology is. Only if you know there’s a “Right” can you come to revolt at anyone who has denied it in choosing to wrong you instead. My claims from here on become suitable under this logic)

A relativist could claim that hate crimes and the like are not conductive for a peaceful, lawful society; one which ultimately benefits them. I could make the argument that we are "moral" solely because of our own selfishness.

It is thus here, that I am forced to digress from my main idea; for I am in the need to fixing the broken ties severed by my violent predecessors. This must be done before I am able to make any valid or understandable claim within the topic at hand for the sake of this article’s main purpose, which is to bring an understanding mediation between both perspectives.

–After much conversation with those afflicted, it has come to my attention that there seems to be an agreement in meaning that blames their suffering to religion’s hand, in providing meaning to those who act brutally in treacherous ways: Christianity being the biggest apparent perpetrator.

So IS Religion there to support these heinous crimes?

In the Bible, there are instances where Homosexuals were stoned and Slaves were kept and mistreated while Women too were detained the most basic of human rights. The Old Testament is full of occurrences portraying this. Does that mean that the God who is believed to have inspired the minds of those who wrote the Bible agrees and supports any of this? I’ll answer this as simply as I can:

The answer is quite notably NO, and anyone believing otherwise is sadly misinformed. These accounts of social stonings and mistreatments and discriminations were never acts inspired by any particular God. In the case of Christianity, it must be noted that if anyone were to truly commit to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, then it is clear that only the one with no sin in mind has any possibility of “tossing the first stone”.

Simply put, a Christian is he who follows the teachings of Christ. Those who don’t clearly aren’t. Jesus stood here on Earth to protect the afflicted and to bring peace and repentance to humanity. Anyone who stands against this fails miserably in keeping their faith. It’s as simple as this argument will ever get.

Pointless violence, unjust dealings, demeaning discrimination and everything in that spectrum stands as acts reviled by our basic sense of humanity. When anyone is victimized on this manner by some unchangeable aspect of their being, we have a clear course of action. There can’t possibly exist an argument there. Violent and discriminatory actions are wrong in every way shape or form.

Actions taken for the sake of social order, however, and which follow a noble, clean, and right course of action under it’s ideology, should be the main point of our argumentation. As it should be the main tactic to be used in gaining any prosperity in this problem. This is where the problem is currently rooted upon.

-------------

I want to make something clear: with this argument, you are discarding biblical literalism, correct?

Now that a basic foundation for the development of this piece has been laid, it is here that the main ideas of the argument should start to unfold. It should go beyond saying that many, many misconceptions have plagued this argument back and forth, and it is only fair that some Light is sought in order to further move towards finding a fair resolution.

As I mentioned earlier, any action taken to dehumanize and discriminate against the personal dignity of any individual human being in this Earth is and will always be wrong in every single perspective possibly observed. I can’t stress this enough.

–Homosexuality entails the characteristic of having a general attraction to one’s own gender. That comes strictly from a simple epistemology of the word. Therefore, it should also follow that a homosexual is anyone who enacts this principle, just as how a worker is someone who works, or a liar is someone who lies.

Having homosexual tendencies doesn’t necessarily make a person homosexual up until they factually act upon them, just as how a person is not a liar, worker, or a robber up until the moment they choose to tell a lie, do some work, or steal an item. The underlying wish to steal or lie or work is not enough to prove someone is a robber or a liar or a worker simply because such are only affinities which rest within the infinite range of action. Simply put: within every single situation we are presented, there is an infinite amount of possible things we can do to deal with what we are given, and it is the action that is finally determined the one that most easily portrays the character of a person. What this merely follows is the premise that an instinct is not enough to shape the character of a person. It is the action which follows the instinct the one which matters most, for it portrays the overbearing capacity of an instinct in controlling the character, as it becomes a part of it. Instincts will always exist. What we choose to do with them is what makes us, not only human, but who we are overall.

The difference is lying is an action, and stealing is an action, whereas attraction is not. I am, at this very second, not pursuing a woman, but this does not make me any less of a heterosexual.

If we're defining homosexuality strictly as the attraction for the same gender, then whether the person in question acts on it or not, he is still a homosexual.

Here’s another way to view it: when going through our daily routines, we are bombarded with a plethora of choices we can make regarding the way upon which we pass our time. Right now I could easily stop typing this statement and go outside, go fishing, call a friend or sit in a comatose state in front of a television set (as the rest of our beautiful generation is so fond of doing). These are all perfectly feasible things I could do. Just because such choices exist doesn’t mean that they all become the embodiment of who we are. But even deeper, neither does this mean that our choices at one particular point dictate who we ultimately are either. We can’t possibly arrive to that conclusion logically: For, just because I went fishing once doesn’t mean I am a fisherman. It only means I have the capacity of doing so.

I am attracted to women. If, for the purposes of this debate, I had sex with a man, would that make me a homosexual (even if I didn't enjoy it)?

–How exactly can we possibly tie this to our argument?–

Well, if you think about it, it becomes clear that it is not just particular choice, but rather the surely repeating choices we make in the majority of times we are given a similar scenario the ones which lead to a better portrayal of the character of a person. I am a writer, for example, because I write, and because every time I am given a choice to do something, most of the times I choose to spend my time either writing or doing things which ultimately relate to writing, such as reading, or attentively listening to philosophical presentations.

This model better explains why people are able to change their characters, and even why some aren’t capable of doing so. For, if we are ultimately in control of the decisions we make, and we have every capacity to change what we do, we equally have the capacity to change at any given point in time, both by will, and through the help of others. Instinct is always mediated by choice, because choice determines the course of actions which are taken to follow such urges. What we need to understand is that, in this argument, sexual impulse is the natural instinct, while homosexuality or heterosexuality deal with the ways upon we choose to satiate the urge.

After reading that last statement, I’m sure some of my readers may be thrown in a wild frenzy. As pleaded earlier, I only ask for attentive ears in allowing me a chance to develop my arguments fully before being assailed by all types of retorts. Do not fret, for I do intend to develop such seemingly behemoth claim.

I am well aware that there is a plethora of arguments that seek to support homosexuality as being a natural factor. It is here that I aim to tackle some of the most famous ones which have circulated and shaped mainstream thought for the last couple of generations:

The Animal Case

Its main premise is the following: “There are countless of species within the animal kingdom which portray homosexual relations on a daily basis. Since animals display it, it is deduced that homosexuality is caused by nature, because animals are guided by basic biological physiologies that guide their actions.”

Here are the two major fallacies within this argument:

–Although seemingly logical, what this argument essentially fails to do is to provide for any evidence to support its key underlying hidden premise of what exactly causes such behavior. The exact physiological factor that dictates whether one specific type of animal is created to be homosexual and another one isn’t is completely missing from their whole thesis. Within every observed species that does enact homosexuality, there is always a portion of them which also seek the heterosexual way of reproduction. What we are missing is any concrete evidence which dictates that ONE individual of that species shall strictly be homosexual while another shall be heterosexual in character. Most of the time, even the same creature that had been observed doing the initial homosexual act which created this claim will soon turn and pursue a heterosexual intercourse. This very observation supports the existence of a sexual drive/instinct. The way upon which such is satisfied in the natural kingdom however merely depends on availability. What differentiates us from those animals is simply the fact that within our humanity, we have the common decency of knowing that we shouldn’t necessarily have sex with anyone we personally desire.

–This leads to my second problem with this argument. When it comes to nature, every species which reproduces sexually is bound by a Darwinistic sense of natural selection to seek a heterosexual partnership. That is the natural way for sexual species to reproduce. It is thus contradictory of nature to have a physiological “switch” for homosexuality in a species that reproduces heterosexually because that would sadly doom the species. Ultimately, it isn’t natural at all for such drive to exist. It is therefore not out of nature, but out of a species’ wish to satisfy its sexual desire, that homosexuality comes into the picture; as I mentioned earlier, an animal’s sexual drive can still be satisfied both by homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Actually, if we want to be truthful about it, all (or almost all) social animals are essentially bisexual. So, going by instinct alone, humans should be bisexual too. We look to other animals to basically see how our nature would be if it were not tempered by society and the like. I don't think anyone argues that being a homosexual is right because animals do it too; this is basically used to defend homosexuality from the Christian far right that claims that homosexuality is an abomination.

(Don’t think here that I am an ignorant fool for not thinking of the types of animals which have the ability of interchangeable reproduction roles. I do acknowledge their existence, as portrayed by the whiptail lizard. For the sake of brevity, I failed to address these outliers because they fail to represent the human experience of sexuality. The second humans are able to reproduce though parthenogenesis though, I will happily accommodate these views)

Carbon nanotubes will make everything possible : <

This brings up the second most important point that should be addressed about this topic. Since we are dealing with human individuals, it is of higher reason to study human beings closely to seek any true information about the issue. Even though both biologically and anatomically speaking, man and women complement each other in every way shape or form, to further prove the natural aspect of homosexuality, three major scientific research projects stand as the true backbone of their point. These are what some believe to be scientific prove for the existence of that physiological ‘switch’ of which I mentioned earlier within the human persona. Talk to any homosexual activist, and you will receive these as the ultimate dogma of their case:

– Homosexuality has been ‘proven’ to have genetic ties through its representation via twin studies, hypothalamus size, and the x-chromosome research.

There is just a little problem with these points though. One way or another, they all have some key aspect about them which makes them deplorably inconclusive. A basic analysis of them can easily portray this:

Bailey and Pillard’s Famous Twin Studies

-Having asked a number of related and unrelated siblings, in their 1991 studies, Bailey and Pillard observed that: of a sample of individuals studied, 52% of the identical twins who answered their questionnaire happened to be homosexual, while 22% of fraternal twins shared this trait, and only 11% of adoptive siblings did. Since identical twins are known to have the same genetic and natural environment from birth along sides the same nurturing qualities, it was concluded that genetics served as a great factor towards homosexuality. Let us analyze this conclusion though.

The experiment was done through a questionnaire published in a certain amount of “gay newspapers”. The subjects studied were those who decided to answer to such surveys, throwing away the ‘simple random sample’ quality which would validate any statistical study. Another main problem with this research is that no key medical factors were observed throughout the course of the experiment (the questions only focused on sexual orientation). Since there were no “blinds” within the experiment, biased framing of the questions could’ve gravely over-inflated the results. And repetition is yet to occur.

Just a basic glimpse of the study will make anyone with a critical mind a little suspicious of its conclusion. What was found was a correlation between the homosexuality of one twin as compared to the sexual orientation of the other. Since a causal connection was found, the researchers thus tied in a hefty conclusion to base their observation. The data and experiments provided however have yet to prove a concrete causation to this characteristic, and rushing into such a realization was irresponsible at best.

–“If genes absolutely determined sexual orientation the concordance rate for monozygotic twins should be 100%”~ Dr. Simon LeVay.

Dr. LeVay’s Hypothalamus Experiment
(Actual Experiment Found: HERE)

Since the first experiment was criticized gravely for its lack of any true biological explanation for homosexuality, Dr. LeVay came to the stage to embark on such a journey.

In his experiment, Dr. Simon LeVay studied the cadavers of 41 individuals: 19 allegedly homosexual men, 16 allegedly heterosexual men, and 6 allegedly heterosexual women.

Experimenting upon such, he sought to see if there was a relation between the hypothalamus size of a homosexual and heterosexual men. Since the hypothalamus is known to be the control center of all hormonal activity, it was believed to be the crucial spot needed to be observed.

Being smaller than the hypothalamus of men, the hypothalamus of women is known to function slightly differently according to the hormones it has to deal with within female anatomy. Simply put, this experiment sought to see if such correlation existed between the hypothalamus of homosexual men and that of heterosexual men; and this is exactly the claim he concluded at the end of it.

Even though Dr. LeVay claimed that the results he gathered supported his claim, again, a close study of the data yields such conclusion to be gravely overstated:

–Having an incredibly small sample size, the representativeness of this study doesn’t add up to be able to hold much ground by any statistical understanding.

–Also, out of the 16 heterosexual cadavers used, 6 of them had died of AIDS, which gravely affects the brain structure and further increases the chances that their sexual histories may have been incompletely recorded. The only proving factors Dr. LeVay held towards “knowing” the sexual orientation of his patients was merely their medical case histories, which by no means guaranteed to provide accurate information dealing with the patient’s sexual practices or orientation for that matter.

–Something which Dr. LeVay also sadly failed to report was the fact that 3 of the cadavers of the homosexual sample actually had a larger INAH3 structure than that of heterosexuals. (The experiment also forgets the fact that there are still some homosexuals with a perfectly ‘normal’ INAH3 size.)

–Another criticism also comes from the fact that not even researchers are sure if one could conclusively prove the points Dr. LeVay wanted to prove by comparing the area and not volume or number of neuron connection within that area of the brain.

—- The MAIN criticism to this study however is the obvious degree of bias which came from Dr. Simon LeVay himself. Being an open homosexual, he once told ‘Newsweek’ that, after the death of his lover, he was determined to find a genetic cause for homosexuality, or else he would abandon science altogether. Even though this surely is a noble act, it makes us wonder whether or not he wished to interpret the data he gathered in whichever way he willed, leaving matters open to his personal self-serving bias.

–Again, this experiment is yet to be repeated.

Dr. Hamer’s X-chromosome Research

Within Biology, there are two different ways to pass down information genetically. One is the Mendelian form of inheritance and the other is Thomas Hunt Morgan’s Sex-linked inheritance. Taking a stab at the latter one, Dr. Dean H. Hamer sought to see if homosexuality and thus, sexual orientation, could be a genetic variation passed down through familial generations.

In his study, he sought to see if a variation within the only x-chromosome held within men could hold a translating factor that would determine one’s sexual orientation.

Since no conclusive link could possibly be made between women and this factor, Dr. Hamer sought to find if such could possibly exist within the male character.

The confusing factor of this experiment is the fact that homosexual men can’t possibly pass down their x-chromosomes to their resulting son because for a son to be male he would require a y-chromosome from his father. Therefore, only women can be carriers of this trait, and since it shows no predominant factor in determining the orientation of a female towards homosexuality, it can only be concluded that this, if it truly is a genetic train, is of recessive statue. The underlying premise of this experiment however is the fact that for it to truly happen, the homosexual male would have to mate in order to pass down his genetic variations to a resulting daughter who would then thus pass down the trait to her son. This fact rules out all the homosexual males in one’s family who are of relation because they have adopted a child, since such child does not share the genetic structure of his or her adoptive parents.

–Since conceiving a child via vitro fertilization, (which is the only possible way for this trait to be inherited) is a recent invention, this would not explain the fact that the existence of homosexuality has been evident since the thousands of generations before the time this was invented.

Hamer himself noted that “this variation is not nearly, at all, acting as some automatic switch that makes you one way or another”, which makes inheritance and nature’s role to be a relativistic factor instead of the acclaimed ultimatum that most of the homosexuals argue it to be.

Other Studies:

– Just because it has been observed that a homosexual male can be seen to be the youngest within a family of many males, the existence of more brothers by no means proves that it is a factor that determines one’s sexual orientation. This is merely an infinitesimal correlation found within a very small portion of the homosexual population, and it fails to serve as a factor affecting those who are only children.

This is also highly ignorant of the fact that within most big families, the younger siblings tend to be perfectly normal. No direct study has ever been made to truly support this hypothesis, and basing a major claim by using a hypothesis alone is not just ignorant but highly fallacious at best. Avoiding these type of positions is best for when approaching such an argument.

-------------

I won't argue this because I don't believe there is such a 'switch'. I believe sexuality is only an issue with humans, and it depends on the culture. For example, we all know the Greeks had a view on it far different than ours.

Nature vs. Nurture?

– Ultimately, there are certain types of experiences which are life-changing; where a person’s life is never able to be the same once they go through them. Acting upon one’s sexual curiosities has got to be one of the main shaping factors known to humanity.

Just like the introduction of drugs into one’s system, it is irrelevant if we have a tendency or a family history towards something unless we finally act upon it. Once certain experiences are gone through, it is impossible to erase the natural thirst people will have for more. An alcoholic anonymous program, for example, will never be able to take away a man’s craving for a beer after a hard-day’s work if they have experience it’s satisfaction before. It might be healthier for a man to live without beer, but the desire for it will never leave him. The same applies to sex.

The fulfillment of one’s sexual instinct can happen both through homosexual and heterosexual ways. Whichever is chosen in the act will change you no matter what.

Whatever one’s preference may be, going back to an innocent state is impossible from then. The sexual drive will haunt them forever.

If a man is welcomed by another man’s arms, or if a woman is welcomed by another woman’s, it is impossible to change the good sensation that will forever follow that action. One’s experiences still stand as the catalyzing factor towards the repetition of any given desire. When it comes to the genetic spectrum of things, it is important to stress the fact that the research is mostly inconclusive within the homosexual argument. Some homosexuals have the supposed traits while others don’t, and even some heterosexuals may hold the studied traits of which researchers have been trying to use in order to prove their conclusions. Since the female aspect of homosexuality has yet to be related, it appears as though the natural characteristics are standing upon an impasse.

*****

Just like someone might have a preference for sports, whereas his best friend might prefer the life of books. Neither is wrong or right; they're just preferences.

The Civil Debate

Job Discrimination:

–As mentioned very early on this address, discrimination of any type against any individual in any way shape or form is strictly deplorable. The law is there to protect and ensure that a just and decent procession of facts is followed in order to lead to the successful flourishing of a society. Therefore, it is beyond wrong to hinder the potential of any perfectly capable individual under the basis of personal preference.

If the behavior of an individual does not comply to the necessities of a certain job however, whoever is in charge has the duty of to do what he or she must to make sure that whoever is at fault knows such a fact, and that if they don’t come to comply, they risk the job in question.

Regardless of how brilliant someone is, if they are disrespectful or incompliant, then the job might not necessarily go to them.

If an individual portrays a certain characteristic behavior which is typical of the homosexual lifestyle (which really shouldn’t) that hinders the professional status of a specific organization or place of work, then the law can’t possibly do anything to protect or ensure his or her employment. Be it because of the flamboyant or promiscuous character of a person or whatever other characteristic it might be, it is the duty of the employer to inform the employee whether or not such is to be tolerated, and if it isn’t that the employee at least knows that there is a certain sense of self control that must occur in order to maintain or gain the given position. There are certain behaviors which are perfectly controllable; and someone’s sexual orientation does not nearly works to hinder the professional character of a person (or at least it shouldn’t). If it does, there are prices to pay, but if it doesn’t, then there is no reason behind why anyone should be denied to work in whatever field they happen to excel at.

As long as we agree that extreme heterosexual behavior might also be as destructive, alright.

Gay Marriage:

–When it comes to the marriage argument, we have to understand that homosexuals are NOT the only community of individuals who have been denied marriage in general. This has been so for as long as the institution of marriage has been around. Even looking back at one of the most liberal of all societies, which was the Roman Empire before the rise of Catholicism, marriage itself was still only considered between a man and a woman. Of course, relationships between man and man and beast and tree and rock and animal and any other possible thing known were still recorded, but the sanctity of marriage was always still reserved.

Marriage, however, is a contract (and there's economic implications in being married and not being married), and we must keep that in mind. A human and an animal cannot form a contract. A tree and a rock cannot form a contract. Only two consenting adults may form a contract.

Humans by nature have an outstanding capacity to Love. If we are able to come to cope and understand the true implications and the meaning of such a word, it is undeniable that something beautiful lies within it. Being absolute sacrifice and dedication, and devotion and affection, Love brings within it a bond that forges two people together with a tie that is unbreakable, for it is stronger with the passing of time.

If sexual love is the sole criterion for marriage, however, how can a court or church deny such bond from a party of two, or five, or nine; or from a pair of siblings, or cousins or father and daughter?

Maybe because there's no outcry for these yet, and there never has been. If, at one point, it is demonstrated that a sizable minority of people cry out for justice in regards to polygamy and incest, then we'll be forced to face it. Until then, homosexuals are the ones asking for justice, just like blacks did, and just like women did.

A court won't recognize hypothetical cases, and society works much like that.

Ultimately, homosexual marriage is denied under the critical basis that it would lead to the legalization of other, more deterring marital institutions that equally argue some of the same points. Marriage is not there to detract from the possible benefits a couple can share within a society. As written by Adam Kolasinski in his secular argument dealing with homosexuality, he states that “Advocates of gay marriage claim that homosexual couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with their roommates”

If I believed that homosexuality was being denied because the large number of people who disagree with it fear that, eventually, people could marry trees, you might have a point there. But the majority of people who don't want homosexual marriage (and yeah, I'm making the number up) don't want it because of their beliefs.

Now, I'm not saying you're the same, I'm saying that your argument isn't common.

Every human being deserves to be treated with respect, honor, acceptance, love and understanding. We are all human. We are all individuals with our needs and our opinions and our aspirations. When talking about this subject, a court’s decision must be crucially scrutinized. “If it seeks to gain neutrality by asserting that social autonomy is best, it fails miserably, considering how biased social autonomy (or the choice of a person to do as he deems best) is in relation to the argument at hand.”

Social Autonomy and Social Regulation are polar forms of idealisms. The only neutral road leads only to the ignoring of the problem altogether, and that is clearly far from reasonable. When dealing with the lives of human beings we must be careful not to lose humanity out of the picture. It is only responsible for us to take in the information we are presented and analyze it, to the best of our abilities, to see if we can possibly stand in acknowledgement of what is best to be done.

Well, I did what I could. It's probably a little bit disorganized, and I'm far too lazy to fix that, but hopefully you'll understand my points and respond.

 

[Dogenzaka]

Another day, another homo-discussion thread with everything in it said and done before over the past 5 years on this site.

 

[Phoenix]

Except he's actually saying new things. Different from the, you know, "my religion gives me the right to dictate civil law" bit we've grown oh-so tired of.

 

[The Conquerer]

To be fair, America isn't the only country in the world that is debating this issue.
Many different countries of many different religions are also debating this issue.

That's true. It was in the morning and I hadn't had all my thoughts together.

So it's no choice.

I'm saying it's a choice to keep being sexually active not, what you are attracted to... That's why I said at this point it's probably more than choosing to be gay...

On the lifestyle thing, how is homosexuality a lifestyle? I don't get it. Being straight is a lifestyle? No one ever talks about that. "Yeah, I'm straight. It's a super duper lifestyle, for sure!"

I meant it kind of differently. Like if someone's happiness doesn't tangiblly affect the lives of others in a negative way, it should be tolerable.

As for people turning gay by the way they grew up or experienced, there is no such proof for that. Nature vs nurture is always brought up, but there have been no similarities or consistencies between gay people and the way they grew up. Let alone with animals, while we're at it.

So you're saying people are born straight or, gay? I would like to think children grow up and experiences the idea of sexuality from those around them as well as the media... But that's just what I think.

Sometimes things just are

Some people just want to know why. If homosexuality is an effect, people want to know the cause. Is it genetic? Is it how they were socialized? Dose it have to do with a little of both? Could it be a coincidence, yet manifested into something more after the person got strong urge from it? People just want to know why...

 

[New2Ya]

I'm saying it's a choice to keep being sexually active not, what you are attracted to...

But wouldn't that be unfair?

That's why I said at this point it's probably more than choosing to be gay...

It's a choice whether you acknowledge your sexuality, the way youre, or whether you don't do it. It should never have to be a choice in my opinion, but unfortunately, the Abraham religion has really messed with people's heads.

So you're saying people are born straight or, gay? I would like to think children grow up and experiences the idea of sexuality from those around them as well as the media... But that's just what I think.

If that were to be true, then homosexuality would be growing rapidly these days, with all these homosexual influences and people on television, radio, books, etc. Kids are affected by all of them every single day. Oh My God we are all turning GAAAAAY!

No, that's not how it works. There are not more gay people now than there were two hundred or three thousand years ago. It's just that people are starting to realize now what nonsense it was all those centuries ago. All these years of Abrahamic influences. Thank God (lol) that we're starting to use our own heads.

Some people just want to know why. If homosexuality is an effect, people want to know the cause. Is it genetic? Is it how they were socialized? Dose it have to do with a little of both? Could it be a coincidence, yet manifested into something more after the person got strong urge from it? People just want to know why...

Of course people want to know why, I get that. But it leads nowhere. There is not a cause why people are heterosexual either.

Pedophelia is very different from other sexualities, because it seems to have a cause. Young victims of pedophiles seem to do such acts later on in their lives. But pedophelia is not a sexuality the way heterosexuality or homosexuality is. That is because you can be a pedophile, yet be straight. Or a pedophile, yet be gay. So it is different. It's a disorder that has been developing through life. It is a nurture problem, as far as most research point out.

But homosexuality and heterosexuality and bisexuality, research has never given real proof on what the cause is.

And really, it's mostly people that question homosexuals that want to know the cause. No one gives a damn but those people.

 

[The Conquerer]

But wouldn't that be unfair?

I'm saying what you are attracted to, is what you are attracted to. You're not choosing to be attracted to someone. I mean you can however, that would be kind of forced (for whatever reasons).

But it leads nowhere.

Perhaps, but that won't stop people from looking for reasons... That didn't stop scientists for trying to determine what distinguishes people based on race.

There is not a cause why people are heterosexual either.

How come? We grow up around our parents and come to understand what is "typically deemed" a true marriage (between man a women). Society also strongly pushes the idea that man and women is true and the only natural relationship. Peers also play a role in all of that. However, society and people are starting to become more open in regards to sexuality, so those who hide in the closet are a little more comfortable coming out. We read and hear a lot about men on the down low. They obviously shaped themselves to fit how society would generally accept them. If gay people can act straight how come those who are of neutral sexuality can't align towards heterosexuality if they grow up being taught their parents and peers' typical values?

 

[New2Ya]

How come? We grow up around our parents and come to understand what is "typically deemed" a true marriage (between man a women). Society also strongly pushes the idea that man and women is true and the only natural relationship. Peers also play a role in all of that. However, society and people are starting to become more open in regards to sexuality, so those who hide in the closet are a little more comfortable coming out.

You're contradicting yourself.

Cause of heterosexuality is the idea of true marriage between man and woman, the way society pushes this idea, etc. If that is the reason why there are heterosexual people, that would leave no option for homosexuals. Because society does not approve of that. Not really.

And people who are gay don't want to be most of the times.

We read and hear a lot about men on the down low. They obviously shaped themselves to fit how society would generally accept them. If gay people can act straight how come those who are of neutral sexuality can't align towards heterosexuality if they grow up being taught their parents and peers' typical values?

Because tey're attracted to both sexes and don't care what other people think about that. But more importantly, we don't know how many bisexuals live a heterosexual life.

 

[The Conquerer]

Cause of heterosexuality is the idea of true marriage between man and woman, the way society pushes this idea, etc. If that is the reason why there are heterosexual people, that would leave no option for homosexuals. Because society does not approve of that. Not really.

Well that's why I'm saying society is changing or, at least I hinted to that. Though, it's for the most part not as far along as it could be, but it's getting there. Way more open than it was say 2 decades ago or, so. It could only get better from here or, I would at least think so. Though, there's other factors that could potentially facilitate homosexuality. Perhaps an off chance awkward experience (at a young age maybe?) or, perhaps something along these lines:

(Guy doesn't understand girls and effectively gives up. Finds the comfort of a relationship with a man much more satisfying.) Could grow into something strong if said person goes out and tries to find suitable mates... If he finds love, he can over look the fact that he has a male body because he's in love. He'll be more than attracted physically in the long run anyway...

Not sure how often that happens or, if it really happens like that, but it's at least considerable...

And people who are gay don't want to be most of the times.

True. Though, if they grew up with a family that shunned it from the getgo, I'm sure they wouldn't want their parents to know (it's not like something people can just change). Probably scared how their friends or, family would react to them being gay because it breaks the norm in those particular circles. More importantly, some kids can be really cruel in high school. That can be at least one of the reasons as to why people who are gay, don't want to be.

Because tey're attracted to both sexes and don't care what other people think about that. But more importantly, we don't know how many bisexuals live a heterosexual life.

My point was that it was kept secret. They must have cared to the point in which they'd hide it. Then again, it's cheating all the same, but when cheating occurs where the man sees another man, it tends to be more descrete.