Is Asexuality a choice?

[MobBoss]

Ah, typical MobBoss answer. You ignore what you don't understand. Throw up a couple of strawmen to make yourself look like you're actually arguing the point.

MobBoss....you really should learn how do discuss the topic and not throw out irrelevancies that may look good but actually have little bearing on the topic at hand. When you learn that, let me know and maybe we can have a decent discussion.

This.

Is simply avoiding this earlier exchange:

And please realize, that's a strawman. There's a big difference between having a drug or alcohol problem and getting it fixed and what your sexual orientation is.

The comment was in reference to your own comment in regards to people not changing, ever. Let me quote it again:

Maybe in the future people will be able to custom order their sexuality, but right now it's simply not possible. No amount of praying, wishing, hoping, or planning can change what you are. If you think you can, you're lying to yourself.

People can and do change.

Now wait a sec. Didnt you just say no amount of praying, wishing, hoping or planning can change what you are? And if you think you can change, you're lying to yourself?

Which is it? You cant change and if you think you can your're simply lying....or you can indeed change?

Or will you simply call this a strawman and move on?

Guess my final prediction was right on the money. Its funny how many people do that when they get own self into a corner like you did with the change comment. I guees its wrong of me to point that kind of thing out in a debate, or to actually ask for proof of something that someone alleges. So, you just toss a small insult about how I dont know how to discuss a topic, and lack understanding and call it good to make yourself feel better.

Works for me.

Have a nice day.

 

[Turner]

Again with the avoidance of the issue. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would see that I answered your question before it even occurred to you to answer it. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would see that there are many different ways of changing. I would explain it to you, but I doubt you'll listen,as you have failed to listen so far. There was nothing inconsistent with what I said.

So instead of pottering on with the same old thing I'm not going to get sucked into going round and round with you. Especially when you can't take the time to read and understand what people are saying. So let me close with the last paragraph in my last post:

MobBoss....you really should learn how do discuss the topic and not throw out irrelevancies that may look good but actually have little bearing on the topic at hand. When you learn that, let me know and maybe we can have a decent discussion.

 

[warpus]

I could take the inverse and say:

Hey, you're the one saying that such a thing is impossible. If it's impossible, and it cant happen, it should be documented, and it should be easy enough to find a link to some sort of a study.

So? Are you prepared to do this? No?

Ok then.

If something is impossible, it should be documented?

Unicorns baking bread that cures cancer is pretty much imposslbe - is this documented anywhere?

Your "inverse" doesn't work. I'm not saying that such a thing is *impossible*! I'm open to the idea - but you're the one saying that it indeed possible. If it is, let us examine the evidence (and it's *your* job to bring this evidence to the table) and have a discussion.

If not, let's discard your argument and move on.

 

[MobBoss]

Again with the avoidance of the issue. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would see that I answered your question before it even occurred to you to answer it. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would see that there are many different ways of changing. I would explain it to you, but I doubt you'll listen,as you have failed to listen so far. There was nothing inconsistent with what I said.

So instead of pottering on with the same old thing I'm not going to get sucked into going round and round with you. Especially when you can't take the time to read and understand what people are saying. So let me close with the last paragraph in my last post:

But...you didnt even tell me to have a nice day.

/sigh.

People dont agree on everything Turner. I believe your point, as given, on its face, was indeed inconsistent. I even quoted you side by side, in context, to show that. Now, if you dont want to write a doctorate leve thesis to explain how some things change, but other things dont over the course of a persons life, and blah, blah, blah....thats your business. But dont tell me I didnt understand your comments as given. If I met someone in a bar, and they said to me that 'no amount of praying, hoping, wishing, or planning can change who you are'...and then they followed that up by saying 'of course people can change'....I think any reasonably smart person would stop and say 'huh'? Which is tantamount to what I did in this thread.

Rather than make comments about your 'smarts' or your 'understanding' I will simply say that I do indeed disagree with your comments, and feel I have made legitmate counters to the points you have made. As in all things, you are absolutely free to disagree with that opinion.

 

[MobBoss]

If something is impossible, it should be documented?

Sure.

Unicorns baking bread that cures cancer is pretty much imposslbe - is this documented anywhere?

You dont think that Unicorns being mythical and not real isnt documented?

Ok.

Your "inverse" doesn't work. I'm not saying that such a thing is *impossible*! I'm open to the idea - but you're the one saying that it indeed possible. If it is, let us examine the evidence (and it's *your* job to bring this evidence to the table) and have a discussion.

But I have given some examples of anecdotal evidence here in this thread. Several times. So have some others who indeed think such things as asexuality is a choice.

Unless you are the kind of person that only some type of official study done by the CDC (or other official org) will suffice, then I cant help ya. The topic itself isnt really important enough for me to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find proof to support my personal opinions put forth in this thread.

But I do need to point personal opinion is all you have offered as well. That being the case, I dont really see how you can 'claim victory' per se and move on. My point being, if proving me wrong is that important to you, you are more than free to do the research to accomplish this - but until you do, you havent done any more than I have in this thread: given opinion.

 

[LightFang]

I think MobBoss's fundamental flaw in his thinking is that he starts with the preconception that asexuality, like homosexuality, must be a choice because his religion demands that homosexuality be a sin--and you can't be responsible for something that you don't have a choice in, so clearly free will is involved here. Thus everything gets interpreted with the swath of free choice in the matter.

I mean, it's not like free choice isn't applicable--I think anybody other than hardcore determinists would say that yes, you choose whether or not to engage in sexual relations--but the only disagreement we have is on whether or not one can actively choose his innate sexual orientation. Of course, my use of the word innate already assumes that it's not a choice, but don't take that to mean that it must be all genetic: environmental factors may play a role as well.

 

[Turner]

I mean, it's not like free choice isn't applicable--I think anybody other than hardcore determinists would say that yes, you choose whether or not to engage in sexual relations--but the only disagreement we have is on whether or not one can actively choose his innate sexual orientation. Of course, my use of the word innate already assumes that it's not a choice, but don't take that to mean that it must be all genetic: environmental factors may play a role as well.

There's too many different variables to say it is genetic, or choice, or environmental... I certainly think the pregnancy has something to do with it.

You would think that with modern medicine, we could have figured this out by now. Of course, we can't cure a simple viral infection, so why should I think that we can figure out something complex such as this?

 

[LucyDuke]

I am not making things up. You have been alledging Craig is a homosexual all throughout this thread. The anti-gay thing was what you offered in support of that. Do you now deny that?

The soliciting sex with men in the mens room thing is what I offered in support of the allegation that Larry Craig pursues sex with men. The anti-gay thing is the irony that exposes a huge flaw in your reasoning. Quote me if you need me to clarify what made you think what you said, but don't make things up.

Of course he doesnt matter....now that I have asked for proof from you concerning your comments in regards to him.

And people say I have a hard time admitting errror. /sheesh.

He didn't matter before. He is not some kind of pillar this argument rests upon. Right, I can't prove he's queer. If it was proven the man doesn't actually exist, it would change nothing, though you'd probably claim some sort of victory. (Why don't you go ahead and say whatever it is you want to say after he's out of the discussion? Or don't you have a point more interesting than "you can't prove he had sex with a man!"?)


But of course you're going to latch onto Larry Craig and this lie you made up about what I said about him, since you have no actual counter to my argument. I don't know whether you're just ignoring the meat of my case or you really don't understand what's going on, but it's pretty clear you're either not interested in or unable to have an honest discussion about the topic at hand.

When you've got an actual answer to why Ted Haggard chose to (or why anyone would choose to) desire sex with men when sex with men would destroy his career - an actual answer, not "he's crazy" - let me know. Until then, he, Bob Allen, and every other homosexually-active man that denounces homosexuality is an irreconcilable liability to your assertion that people only have sexual urges if they choose to. You might call that "proof that you're wrong".

 

[warpus]

But I have given some examples of anecdotal evidence here in this thread. Several times. So have some others who indeed think such things as asexuality is a choice.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it isn't really worth much. I mean, if anecdotal evidence was good enough as a form of evidence, you could pretty much give credibility to any sort of argument: ghosts existing, elvis being alive, the loch ness monster making out with bigfoot, levitation, aliens, etc.

Besides, you don't even have anecdotal evidence of people being able to do such a thing - you are merely *musing* that such a thing *might* be possible and are pointing to other people who have mused similar things.

 

[MobBoss]

The soliciting sex with men in the mens room thing is what I offered in support of the allegation that Larry Craig pursues sex with men.

Ever get a speeding ticket you felt was wrongfully given? I have. People have indeed been found guilty for things which they werent necessarily guilty of. Now, I dont profess that in Craigs case at all (I just dont know) - but what I do say is outside of that singular issue, there simply isnt anything else there to support your arguement.

Btw, you have also changed your allegation. Now you say 'pursue'. Earlier it was 'have sex with men'. Do you feel the need to alter your goalposts?

Right, I can't prove he's queer.

And there we have it. Btw, why do you insist on using very bigoted words like that when no one else is?

but it's pretty clear you're either not interested in or unable to have an honest discussion about the topic at hand.

I have been having an honest discussion all through this thread. Stated my opinion and defended it. You might not like how I have done that, or I havent done it sufficiently to your approval. /oh well.

When you've got an actual answer to why Ted Haggard chose to (or why anyone would choose to) desire sex with men when sex with men would destroy his career - an actual answer, not "he's crazy" - let me know.

Again, I have no idea how his mind works, but I could speculate endlessly. Maybe he was just 'curious' just like how you say people experiment and then decide they dont like it....if so, just like you say it doesnt make those others gay, why would it make him gay if this were just a case of 'curiousity gone bad'? Maybe he felt desparate for drugs and the gay massage guy made sex conditional for getting the drugs. Who knows? I confess I dont.....but I think it amusing that you think you do.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it isn't really worth much.

Then by all means please explain to me how your anecdotal evidence is somehow worth more than mine.

I mean, if anecdotal evidence was good enough as a form of evidence, you could pretty much give credibility to any sort of argument: ghosts existing, elvis being alive, the loch ness monster making out with bigfoot, levitation, aliens, etc.

Let me ask you a question about this. If you had someone you utterly trusted, had known all your life, and understood their word was inviolate - and they came to you with some odd story about seeing the loch ness monster/bigfoot/aliens, etc.

What would you tell them? Would you dismiss their arguement as simply being anecdotal? Or would you give them the benefit of the doubt due to your knowing them?

Just curious as to your answer.

 

[LucyDuke]

Ever get a speeding ticket you felt was wrongfully given? I have. People have indeed been found guilty for things which they werent necessarily guilty of. Now, I dont profess that in Craigs case at all (I just dont know) - but what I do say is outside of that singular issue, there simply isnt anything else there to support your arguement.

Btw, you have also changed your allegation. Now you say 'pursue'. Earlier it was 'have sex with men'. Do you feel the need to alter your goalposts?

And there we have it. Btw, why do you insist on using very bigoted words like that when no one else is?

Craig still doesn't matter.

If you think that outside of Larry Craig's sexuality there is nothing here to support my argument, you have not understood my argument at all. Either you're just very confused, or you are outright lying. Either way, you couldn't be more wrong.

Queer is not generally bigoted. I identify myself as queer, and you know damn well I don't hold a milligram of bigotry towards other folks that aren't heterosexual. I'm not using it offensively, it's a blanket term for "not typical heterosexual". Pursuing and having sex with men is an activity that may be undertaken by a homosexual or a bisexual man, more concisely, a queer man. Doesn't matter whether Mr. Example was pursuing homosexual sex or having homosexual sex - both are indicative of homosexual desire.

I have been having an honest discussion all through this thread. Stated my opinion and defended it. You might not like how I have done that, or I havent done it sufficiently to your approval. /oh well.

Again, I have no idea how his mind works, but I could speculate endlessly. Maybe he was just 'curious' just like how you say people experiment and then decide they dont like it....if so, just like you say it doesnt make those others gay, why would it make him gay if this were just a case of 'curiousity gone bad'? Maybe he felt desparate for drugs and the gay massage guy made sex conditional for getting the drugs. Who knows? I confess I dont.....but I think it amusing that you think you do.

You're hung up on Larry Craig, you're lying about what I've said, you're dragging out the same tired crap that I've refuted pages ago. That's not an honest discussion, it's childish mudslinging, the resort when you're backed into a corner.

I never said sexual experimentation does or doesn't make someone gay, whether or not that experimentation is or isn't heterosexual or homosexual, I made a point not to answer that question because it's far beyond the scope of this thread. You're making things up again. (Not to mention the implications of your "gone bad" wording. )

(The gay massage guy was a prostitute, and he wasn't the source of the meth. Your speculation isn't viable.)

Amusing that I think a man would pursue sex with men because he wanted to have sex with men. Yeah, I admit it, it's a bit of a stretch. Once again: I have a very good explanation. You have no explanation.

 

[MobBoss]

Queer is not generally bigoted.

Its generally regarded that way.

I identify myself as queer, and you know damn well I don't hold a milligram of bigotry towards other folks that aren't heterosexual.

So what your saying is its ok for you to say it since you identify with it, but it would indeed be offensive for others to use it. Sounds a bit like blacks and the N word to me. Here is a thought....maybe neither party should use a term that could be taken as an insult at all. Might be beneficial to all around.

I'm not using it offensively, it's a blanket term for "not typical heterosexual".

Why not just say 'gay', 'homosexual', or even bisexual?

You're hung up on Larry Craig, you're lying about what I've said, you're dragging out the same tired crap that I've refuted pages ago. That's not an honest discussion, it's childish mudslinging, the resort when you're backed into a corner.

I am not lieing. Here is a typical quote from you earlier in the thread:

I don't need proof that Larry Craig is one of the prominently anti-gay men that have had sex with men. He is an example.

So, here you say Craig is an example of an anti-gay man that has had sex with a man. All I did was ask you for some valid proof of the allegation. All you could cite was his toe-tapping incident, which in turn I pointed out quite short of your allegation. Your only other option is now to label me a liar and attack me instead.

Its not me backed into a corner and scrambling. Its been you.

I never said sexual experimentation does or doesn't make someone gay, whether or not that experimentation is or isn't heterosexual or homosexual, I made a point not to answer that question because it's far beyond the scope of this thread.

Then answer it now. Does a 1 time experiment, or say time in prison, make one necessarily homosexual? Please clarify your position if you think I am taking you out of context.

You're making things up again.

Not at all. I asked a question earlier in the thread about sexual experimentation. The answer I got was that it didnt necessarily mean one was gay. In turn, you asked for me to explain Haggard. While I said I have no way to read the mans mind, it could be within the realm of possibility that this was Haggards moment of 'experimentation'. I was perfectly upfront in stating that was pure speculation.

I havent been lieing, and I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that. I havent made this personal or called you names, I have merely pointed out flaws in your own statements and arguement. Lets leave the 'liar' label out of it.

(The gay massage guy was a prostitute, and he wasn't the source of the meth. Your speculation isn't viable.)

Actually, he was indeed the source of the drugs. From the wiki:

In November 2006, he resigned or was removed from all of his leadership positions after he admitted soliciting prostitute Mike Jones for homosexual sex and methamphetamine.

I assume you know what methamphetamine is. Feel free to admit your error...unless, of course you assume I am lieing about it.

You have no explanation.

Yup...I do...and I have even been correct in stating my facts, unlike some in the thread.

 

[warpus]

Then by all means please explain to me how your anecdotal evidence is somehow worth more than mine.

But I'm not even bringing any anecdotal evidence to the table! I'm just asking: "If it's possible, where's the evidence?" And if there's no evidence, why should it be considered a possibility?

Let me ask you a question about this. If you had someone you utterly trusted, had known all your life, and understood their word was inviolate - and they came to you with some odd story about seeing the loch ness monster/bigfoot/aliens, etc.

What would you tell them? Would you dismiss their arguement as simply being anecdotal? Or would you give them the benefit of the doubt due to your knowing them?

Just curious as to your answer.

I certainly wouldn't log onto CFC, locate the latest loch ness/bigfoot/aliens thread, proclaim that aliens exist - and use the anecdotal story from my friend as "evidence".

People see weird things all the time - things they can't understand - this is often attributed to something or other.. ie. "I saw bright lights in the sky" = "aliens!", "I saw something in the water" = "loch ness monster!", "whatever" = "whatever^2!$*&!"

Yeah, I've had friends/family come to me and say "I saw some weird S#!7, dude". And I usually say "Whoa, that is some pretty weird %@*&" in return.. but.. yeah.. taking that and using it to support an argument that you're making to somebody else is taking it a bit too far.

Of course you trust this person and you don't want to make them feel like an idiot if they're saying something stupid (ie. "I saw a flying goat!"), but you *trust* them, so they must have seen it, right? Do you know how vulnerable our senses really are to deception? I've seen some weird crap in my lifetime as warpus - but that doesn't mean that i'm ignorant enough to start using it to back up some point or other.

And like.. don't you already know why anecdotal evidence isn't really a good thing to use to back up an argument? I mean.. isn't that one of the basic things you should know.. isn't that an "arguments 101" chapter 1 type thing?

 

[MobBoss]

I certainly wouldn't log onto CFC, locate the latest loch ness/bigfoot/aliens thread, proclaim that aliens exist - and use the anecdotal story from my friend as "evidence".

Why not? Such a story would be fascinating!

People see weird things all the time - things they can't understand - this is often attributed to something or other.. ie. "I saw bright lights in the sky" = "aliens!", "I saw something in the water" = "loch ness monster!", "whatever" = "whatever^2!$*&!"

True, true.

Yeah, I've had friends/family come to me and say "I saw some weird S#!7, dude". And I usually say "Whoa, that is some pretty weird %@*&" in return.. but.. yeah.. taking that and using it to support an argument that you're making to somebody else is taking it a bit too far.

Its still just anecdotal evidence. I dont think its too far if its taken with the appropriate grain of salt and even offered as such honestly.

Of course you trust this person and you don't want to make them feel like an idiot if they're saying something stupid (ie. "I saw a flying goat!"), but you *trust* them, so they must have seen it, right? Do you know how vulnerable our senses really are to deception?

Oh I absolutely do, and probably have more appreciation for that than the average poster here. Its actually part of my arguement in this thread that people can often deceive themselves to the point where they think its the absolute truth about the issue in question.

I've seen some weird crap in my lifetime as warpus - but that doesn't mean that i'm ignorant enough to start using it to back up some point or other.

Me too....and as such its perfectly legitimate....anecdotal evidence. Stuff shouldnt be excluded merely because its anecdotal....if we did that we would miss out on a lot of fun stuff.

And like.. don't you already know why anecdotal evidence isn't really a good thing to use to back up an argument? I mean.. isn't that one of the basic things you should know.. isn't that an "arguments 101" chapter 1 type thing?

Absolutely...which is why I am more than upfront in admitting its purely anecdotal and merely my opinion when it is such.

 

[LucyDuke]

Its generally regarded that way.

So what your saying is its ok for you to say it since you identify with it, but it would indeed be offensive for others to use it. Sounds a bit like blacks and the N word to me. Here is a thought....maybe neither party should use a term that could be taken as an insult at all. Might be beneficial to all around.

Why not just say 'gay', 'homosexual', or even bisexual?

I've already explained why I didn't say gay or homosexual or bisexual, and why I'm not interested in your verbal preferences here.

I am not lieing. Here is a typical quote from you earlier in the thread:

So, here you say Craig is an example of an anti-gay man that has had sex with a man. All I did was ask you for some valid proof of the allegation. All you could cite was his toe-tapping incident, which in turn I pointed out quite short of your allegation. Your only other option is now to label me a liar and attack me instead.

Its not me backed into a corner and scrambling. Its been you.

That's not what I'm referring to. You have in fact misrepresented what I've said, and more than once. Including right there!

Then answer it now. Does a 1 time experiment, or say time in prison, make one necessarily homosexual? Please clarify your position if you think I am taking you out of context.

Not at all. I asked a question earlier in the thread about sexual experimentation. The answer I got was that it didnt necessarily mean one was gay. In turn, you asked for me to explain Haggard. While I said I have no way to read the mans mind, it could be within the realm of possibility that this was Haggards moment of 'experimentation'. I was perfectly upfront in stating that was pure speculation.

I havent been lieing, and I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that. I havent made this personal or called you names, I have merely pointed out flaws in your own statements and arguement. Lets leave the 'liar' label out of it.

It's beyond the scope of this thread. Nor do I see how it's relevant, seeing as whether someone is or isn't "homosexual", you allege that they choose their desires.

Why would Haggard choose to experiment with sex with men for years while preaching loudly that such a thing was abomination?

Actually, he was indeed the source of the drugs. From the wiki:

I assume you know what methamphetamine is. Feel free to admit your error...unless, of course you assume I am lieing about it.

Yup...I do...and I have even been correct in stating my facts, unlike some in the thread.

I can't find a source for what I recall reading, which was that Mike Jones simply gave him a contact for the meth, so I won't push this one. I still think your suggestion is pretty ridiculous, seeing as Mike Jones was a prostitute.



Now unfortunately, I'm leaving tomorrow night for a 20-day trip with severely limited internet, so I won't be able to keep this one up. You insist sexuality is a choice, I insist it is not. I'm happy to leave it at that, or to resume in three weeks, your call. See you in August.

 

[MobBoss]

It's beyond the scope of this thread. Nor do I see how it's relevant, seeing as whether someone is or isn't "homosexual", you allege that they choose their desires.

Duely noted that you refuse to answer the question.

Why would Haggard choose to experiment with sex with men for years while preaching loudly that such a thing was abomination?

Why does anyone do something that is considered way out of character? Sometimes people do weird things for reasons that make no sense to the rest of us.

I can't find a source for what I recall reading, which was that Mike Jones simply gave him a contact for the meth, so I won't push this one. I still think your suggestion is pretty ridiculous, seeing as Mike Jones was a prostitute.

Maybe it is ridiculous, but its not beyond the realm of possiblity either. Sometimes, the ridiculous does occur. But let me throw you a bone here. You might indeed be absolutely correct in regards to all this. I have at least been honest enough to say I dont know what went on in those folks minds, so I cant say one way or another whats up with any certainity. But I do think people can alter their sexual preference by cognizantly making a choice in regards to it. I never said it was easy, or even natural to do so, but I do believe it can be done.

Now unfortunately, I'm leaving tomorrow night for a 20-day trip with severely limited internet, so I won't be able to keep this one up. You insist sexuality is a choice, I insist it is not. I'm happy to leave it at that, or to resume in three weeks, your call. See you in August.

Have a good trip!

 

[Smellincoffee]

I've known asexuals from AVEN (Asexuality.org) for over three years now and am convinced choice has very little if anything to do with it.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

OK, MobBos: Become homosexual for the duration of one hour after you read this post. Just make yourself attracted to men. Then become straight again and report back. Hey, you can attempt to become Asexual instead if you like.

 

[JohnMarshall12]

Only 158 posts, somebody is not pulling their weight here. I think it is MobBoss. BTW, MobBoss even most scientists when they say choice may be involved in homosexuality, they are referring to a time in early life when no one really has control of their actions (0 to 5 years of age) and this is even if you believe that plays a component.

Also, Larry Craig had other allegations brought against him including his former fraternity president saying Larry came on to him and another gay man saying they had sex together. I am all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but if you really had to bet your house, wouldn't you wager he was guilty of the allegations?

But I do think people can alter their sexual preference by cognizantly making a choice in regards to it. I never said it was easy, or even natural to do so, but I do believe it can be done.

There is actually some science to suggest that this may one day be possible when considering sciences like neuroplasticity. However, you need to understand that this does not change the fact that there is an underlying attraction that even if you believe it was a choice, it occurred at a point when nobody has control of their actions.

Compare this to someone who is left or right handed. Kids from early birth use one hand or the other practically right away. Basically, someone who is left handed didn't choose to be left handed just as the reverse is true. They may choose to use their right hand and become very proficient at it, but that doesn't change the fact that they were and are left hand dominant. The only choice they are making is choosing to become ambidexterous, not to only become right handed.