Do you have to participate in sexual activity to be considered gay or straight?

[Tangerine]

In another discussion, someone brought up the idea that:

Being gay technically is a choice. The fact ones genes make one attracted to the same sex does not eliminate the fact it still is a choice

So the question is, if someone is attracted to the opposite sex, but never acts on those impulses, are they gay?

Another example mentioned was a priest who chooses celibacy. Should we then infer that a priest is not "heterosexual" because they have never had sexual contact with a person of opposite gender?

 

[porterjack]

In another discussion, someone brought up the idea that:



So the question is, if some is attracted to the opposite sex, but never acts on those impulses, are they gay?

Another example mentioned was a priest who chooses celibacy. Should we then infer that a priest is not "heterosexual" because they have never had sexual contact with a person of opposite gender?

there is no choice in who we are, we can choose to supress our desires, urges as we are evolved enough to have that ability - we can even kid oursleves into having sex with the wrong gender but deep down if a gay man has sex with a woman, he does not become heterosexual...he is what he is - a homosexual man

and if he remains celibate, for whatever reason - he remain a homosexual man


good topic to discuss btw:clap

 

[edgray]

yeah it was an astounding piece of logic.

doesn't matter whether you participate in sex or not, your orientation is simply down to who you're attracted to. If you're a guy that likes guys, you're gay, whether you act on that or not. If you're a guy that likes girls, you're hetero, whether you act on it or not. And if you're a girl that likes girls, you're awesome, keep up the good work.

 

[RedRyder]

yeah it was an astounding piece of logic.

Doesn't matter whether you participate in sex or not, your orientation is simply down to who you're attracted to. If you're a guy that likes guys, you're gay, whether you act on that or not. If you're a guy that likes girls, you're hetero, whether you act on it or not. and if you're a girl that likes girls, you're awesome, keep up the good work.

:24:


......

 

[Springsteen]

No you don't have to partake in sexual activity to be gay or straight as it's a case of attraction, simple really.

 

[RedRyder]

As for the question asked as the topic in this thread....

I don't think so. What about those that are just experimenting? *shrugs*

I've often wondered if men who are married and 'in the closet still' are repulsed by having sex with their wives. I mean.... if they are indeed gay.... wouldn't it be like a straight man being repulsed by the thought of having sex with another man?

From a woman's viewpoint..... I've never wondered if a woman that is married and 'in the closet still' would be repulsed by having sex with their husband. I just don't give that much thought. I'm more interested in the males I suppose. Women can't think like a man you know. :cool

 

[dkwrtw]

Nope, if you are attracted to women alone you are straight, if you are attracted to only men you are gay, and if you are attracted to both you are bisexual, whether or not you choose to act on your homosexual urges or to live a lie is irrelevant IMO.

 

[retro]

Nope... the same logic would have to apply with straight people that haven't engaged in sexual activity. So what about all of the straight people out there that haven't engaged in any sexual activity? What would this logic make them?

Being gay is a matter of who you are, it's a choice on whether or not you pursue those relationships, just like it's a choice for a straight person to pursue a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. But the choice to have a relationship is a far different than a choice to just be what you are.

 

[darkcgi]

If you are in a relationship with a person of opposite sex but don't have sex yet are you hetero
if you are in a relationship with a person of same sex but don't have sex are you homo

the definition is broad without a exactly line drawn out on the details
so using it in the above is in inadequate for any real result

 

[Tangerine]

If you are in a relationship with a person of opposite sex but don't have sex yet are you hetero
if you are in a relationship with a person of same sex but don't have sex are you homo

the definition is broad without a exactly line drawn out on the details
so using it in the above is in inadequate for any real result

What if you are not in a relationship at all?

 

[BornReady]

This question is like asking if you have to eat to be considered hungry.

 

[RedRyder]

This question is like asking if you have to eat to be considered hungry.

IMO.... I don't think so. Everyone knows you eat whether hungry or not. You have to eat to survive.

Participating in sexual activities.... not so much. No one knows if you do or don't and who you are doing it with if you are. Under normal circumstances anyway. Behind closed doors.

 

[retro]

This kinda reminds me of something that my mom said, and she's a hardcore fundamentalist Christian, which will help explain her views. She said that it might not be a choice to be gay, but you can make a choice to not be gay and have "normal" relationships. Let's just say that I strongly disagreed with this view when she said it to me... yes, we should just expect people to pretend to be something their not in order to be more socially acceptable towards people who believe their lifestyle to be wrong and immoral.

 

[edgray]

Participating in sexual activities.... not so much. No one knows if you do or don't and who you are doing it with if you are. Under normal circumstances anyway. Behind closed doors.

depends on how thick your walls are.

 

[retro]

IMO.... I don't think so. Everyone knows you eat whether hungry or not. You have to eat to survive.

Participating in sexual activities.... not so much. No one knows if you do or don't and who you are doing it with if you are. Under normal circumstances anyway. Behind closed doors.

Why should people have to hide who or what they are behind closed doors? In order to appease people that are intolerant towards their lifestyle? The eating analogy might be a little much, but it's the same basic idea.

 

[AnnaBabyx]

yeah it was an astounding piece of logic.

doesn't matter whether you participate in sex or not, your orientation is simply down to who you're attracted to. If you're a guy that likes guys, you're gay, whether you act on that or not. If you're a guy that likes girls, you're hetero, whether you act on it or not.And if you're a girl that likes girls, you're awesome, keep up the good work.

Thanks! x

 

[RedRyder]

I think that most parents want their children to be accepted in the real world. A fear that their own child may be gay and the consequences that they will face.... and they will face them.... might make a parent say and do just about anything to keep their child on the 'straight' and narrow (minded) path.

I mean.... look at blended relationships and what happens to their offspring. Society pushes mixed races into tiny places where they fit the best mold. The same can be said of gay people. Or handicapped people. Anything that is different and misunderstood 'must' be put into perspective by most people..... whether it is popular or not in the eyes of others.

 

[BornReady]

IMO.... I don't think so. Everyone knows you eat whether hungry or not. You have to eat to survive.

It's an analogy. So there are similarities and differences. My point is sex and eating are actions and sexual orientation and hunger are natural desires. Not acting on a natural desire doesn't make it go away. If someone starved to death it would be silly to suggest he wasn't hungry. If a man suppressed his desire to have sex with another man his whole life it would be silly to suggest he wasn't gay.

 

[RedRyder]

depends on how thick your walls are.

I suppose you could think like that. Personally..... I'd put the stereo on at 'loud' and do my thing. If my thing were to be loud at doing 'it'. Gay not even being a factor.

Why should people have to hide who or what they are behind closed doors? In order to appease people that are intolerant towards their lifestyle? The eating analogy might be a little much, but it's the same basic idea.

People shouldn't have to. Depends on how strong they feel if they come across another with different views and must defend themselves in some way or another. Or..... because of society in general.... perhaps they feel guilty in their choice(s).... and want to hide?

 

[edgray]

I suppose you could think like that. Personally..... I'd put the stereo on at 'loud' and do my thing. If my thing were to be loud at doing 'it'. Gay not even being a factor.

I hear my neighbours from downstairs.

Correction, the whole block hears my neighbours from downstairs.