In relation to some of the Valerie Jarrett comments...

[vaberella]

Okay I realize that many on here believe her comments to be bigoted and of course her apology didn't get very good reception by many---and I'm not sure where I stand on this yet.

I'm very weary of accepting people's apologies in cases like this. However, I'm a bit confused if I see her comment as bigoted---and I'll expand on why I have problems on whether I should accept her apology or not.

When that Seinfeld guy---the Kramer actor went on a rampage and was saying how he'd watch Black people strung up and stuff---okay that I got was bigoted, down right racist. He apologized for it and I didn't accept his apology.

However, since I don't believe that people are born gay---I have to wonder if I must be bigoted as well. I seriously don't think it's an "or" situation. But an "and." If that makes any sense.

I know many people who disregard bisexuality as someone being greedy. But I strongly believe people are born bisexual and you just kind of go with whoever you love or are attracted as you grow older. ie I felt boys had cooties until I was a teen and not until later in my teen years did I notice I like the pleasures of both gender. I see no barrier to romantic love or sexual attraction, it's all relative. Only one in regards to reproduction.

But considering that I don't believe people are born gay---would that make me as bigoted as Valerie Jarrett for saying what she said. On the one hand...I guess I would be bigoted against both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

When I brought this up to most of my friends they were like it's whatever and thought I was over thinking it. I hope I don't come across stupid, silly, or naive. I'm just a bit...confused, I guess.

[dsc]

1. It wasn't just choice, it was lifestyle choice

wording used by the religious right for decades to argue we don't deserve rights. This is just like articulite being said about Obama. It is dog whistle 101. I will say I didn't choose to be gay. If there had existed a single solitary woman to whom I could be attracted when I was say 11 to about 25 I would have jumped for joy and done anything to win her heart. I prayed, and prayed, and prayed some more and nothing happened.

[vaberella]

4. Okay so she was talking about it being a lifestyle choice.

So then how would my perspective be seen?

I can respect your situation. I mean I've fallen in love with a few women (like truly, madly---but they were heteros)---rarely sexually attracted to them. However I have been sexually attracted to men and have fallen in love with very few. I've never love and sexual attraction at the same time but I'm open to having that with anyone who walks in the door and provides both. I am into both genders so I wonder if in some way I would be making a lifestyle choice or if I'm born this way.

Maybe I'm making this more complicated than it is.

[RandomThoughts]

5. I hope you find someone to love, that can return love and intamacy to you.

Good luck and God Bless.

:loveya:

[RandomThoughts]

16. Found a beutiful song or two or three or four :)

So many good things in life, so many beauties, how could anyone not see the importance of song and dance.

Sarah McLachlan - Angel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LuGzwNy2ws


I am very glad she is around to sing such loving beautiful songs.

Not everything is difficult :) :loveya:

Sarah McLachlan - Loving You Is Easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEetdGN93SE



Another singer I am glad was around to sing songs :)

Father Figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_9hfHvQSNo



Side note, the crickets are in trouble!

Birds!!!!! :D


Who Wants To Live Forever. A really great, but slightly sad, yet hopeful, song :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L8-FTvSVxs

I think that moment is now, and now is every second of a life.

[ruggerson]

2. the one thing that I noticed

was there was a contingent (not you vabarella) that seemed far more worried about Valerie Jarret's reputation than the larger issue of gay kids killing themselves. And the people complaining the loudest about Valeri Jarret being unfairly treated are people who rarely, if ever, show any interest at all in threads about gay rights. Except to occasionally disrupt them.

As for your theory about sexuality, everyone has different traits. You realized your sexuality at a certain age, others realize it as young children (though they usually can't put a name to it until they are 12 or 13). Sexuality is a spectrum, but where you fall on that spectrum is an inborn trait. JMHO.

[vaberella]

8. Agreed.

Actually you are right. Her reputation did take precedent over the issue itself. And actually what I came to realize was that she was thrown the charge of bigot and "racist" in some respects and what she said was a "slur" and showing her true self. It seriously made me question myself and my standing. I never saw myself as a bigot but if the definition were that what she said that sexual orientation was a choice---although a poster affirmed to me it was mostly her interpretation as a lifestyle choice---my views would closely resemble heterosexuality and homosexuality as a choice not something you're born with.

I seriously cannot see myself not attracted both genders for various reasons and I've already warned my mother and I know very well that I could very well marry another woman (if it's legal) or a man. Depending if I find that person to spend my life with. And as you put it, and you put it well---sexuality is a spectrum and I just saw everyone just born bisexual---while the emotions and feelings provided by one gender or another might be more appealing. And as you said---sexual realization does play a part. I was kissed at 7 by a girl and a guy---I liked both. But I figured it was kids playing. It really wasn't until I was in my teen years that I realized I really like both.

[saltpoint]

43. There's considerable support for your analysis in

your second paragraph, ruggerson, among the therapeutic community.

The idea of a spectrum generally is embraced by medial figures -- psychotherapists, social workers, artists, scientists -- but is clumsily received and often misunderstood by the public at large.

It's just my personal opinion, but I think this is what makes intellectuals dangerous to power mongers -- it's that they traverse that spectrum and consider a spectrum to be the landscape of expression. If human expression occurs across a wide spectrum it is automatic that all expressions have merit and meaning and deserve dignity, and power mongers are not inclined toward that model. They thrive in environments where the spectrum is narrowed to a hard right and a hard wrong. In a narrow back alley, they can shove anybody around. But in the wide landscape, they don't have the horses.

The internet has given wings to efforts to assert the spectrum. It's still an imperfect instrument, but it's the best thing that's come along since living in a port city in the days of wooden ships. A girl or boy in high school with internet access runs a good chance of typing in a few key words into a search engine and can discover validation for their sexuality across a very wide spectrum. I'm very encouraged that the web brings the spectrum model back in a fierce and convincing way. More info is usually a lot better than less. Residence in a port city was a very good thing in its time but it took a lot longer for those wooden ships to arrive than it does a Google search.

In a concurrent DU post there is news of a far-Right hate monger, Bryan Fischer, who is blaming the various gay-straight alliances in high schools and colleges for the suicides of the young people in recent weeks. Not surprisingly but very disturbingly, Fischer calls for the return of traditional Judeo-Christian tenets in the public schools to address the problem. It wouldn't be my solution, but in a narrow model of hard right and hard wrong, it's a fear- and hate-mongering tool that fundamentalists of all stripes use to polarize people and ultimately to sanction violence against differences in others, including sexual identities. Fundamentalists are spectrum-shrinkers. They're not all idiots, but they are mostly cowards.

Your second paragraph in your post is so strong and right-on, IMO, that it deserves its own thread.

[jumptheshadow]

45. Brilliant post

This was one of the most astute and well-written posts I have seen on DU in seven years (and there have been a lot of great posts here).

Thank you.

[saltpoint]

54. Hi, jumptheshadow.

You are very gracious.

Thanks right back.

:hi:

[WillParkinson]

3. "People aren't born gay"

Then what, pray tell, is the reason people are gay?

[vaberella]

6. As I said....I believe everyone is born bisexual.

I think we as humans can go with both men or women for love and sexual pleasure. Eventually I see it, if you define yourself as gay---you just fell in love and was sexually attracted to someone of the same sex end of story.

I'm surprised you didn't ask me if I believe people aren't born "heterosexual" what is the reason people aren't born heterosexual? Since I did say I don't believe people are born heterosexual either.

[WillParkinson]

7. Meh...

As a gay man I don't care why straight people are straight. I just chalk it up to they don't know what they're missing. :P

And I disagree about everyone being bisexual, but that would be semantics and hair-splitting for me.

[vaberella]

9. Possibly.

I get that a lot. As someone who's bi, my perspective at times is different. Keep in mind this is the first time I've brought myself out there on this board. Most think I'm homophobic. In any event, since I like both I have to wonder why both go the route they go. It was just something that was bothering me.

[phleshdef]

13. I made a thread about this yesterday and it predictably met a lot of opposition.

I believe people are likely born geared towards a particular sexual orientation. But you don't have to believe that in order to not be homophobic. Its only when you suggest that homosexuality is an inferior orientation that you end up stepping into that realm.

[JI7]

14. but gay men will be sexually attracted to someone they don't love also

they don't fall in love and then become attracted to them.

[Mimosa]

10. Vaberella, I understand what you're saying.

Nobody knows exactly why anybody's bisexual, hetero or homosexual. And some rare individuals may shift their sexual and emotional compass throughout their lives.

I don't know why valerie Jareet said what she did. Way back when I was active in gay rights we often used used to describe being gay, bi or straight as 'sexual preference' and it wasn't politically incorrect. In the late 80s some research suggested that people's sexual orientations are possibly genetic, hormonal and emotional.

Valerie Jarret apparently doesn't understand it and was therefore not the right person the President should be sending out to address gay issues.

A wacky friend of mine believes some nutty rumour President Obama is a closet gay or bi. I just roll my eyes and say 'no way!' The man has a tin ear on gay issues.

[vaberella]

34. Thank you for understanding. I notice a lot of people are confused by my terminology.

Basically I see bisexuality as sexual preference. Like it keeps it open to either being gay or heterosexual. I believe people are open to both upon birth and it's dependent on love or sexual attraction as to who you end up with or prefer. I don't think people get my statements at all--well you did thank you.

Is it politically incorrect to use sexual preference or---would that then be bigotry. Because that's what I'm sort o wondering about.

[bigwillq]

46. Great line.

"Valerie Jarret apparently doesn't understand it and was therefore not the right person the President should be sending out to address gay issues."

:thumbsup:

[Me.]

11. So Is What You're Saying

is that people make a deliberate choice to be treated as less than equal, bullied, subjected to the most brutal forms of violence, tortured emotionally, treated as pariahs and for many, given one hell of a miserable time?

[vaberella]

35. I don't know what you're reading in my post. n/t

[Me.]

47. Please Don't Be Disingenuous

You wrote "since I don't believe that people are born gay". Well since unequal and often terrible treatment is part of the territory of being gay, if people aren't born gay they must be deliberately choosing a lifestyle that can lead to pain.

[treestar]

59. Different issue

In a world where all were accepted, the issue of choosing or not would still be there.

Why are you against people getting to choose what they want? Are you saying if it is a choice is it wrong?

[JI7]

12. love and attraction are not the same, we are attracted to people we don't love

we might even dislike them but find them physically attractive.

that's why the thing you say about love doesn't count here .

gay men are not going to find any women sexually attractive themselves. they might find them to be attractive but wont be sexually attracted to them. same with straight men and other men.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

15. Good post. I have loved many women, but I don't "function" sexually with women.

Women are lucky that they don't have to get hard to fake it.


I'm sure there are many lesbians who can fake their marriages away. It's more difficult for men.

[vaberella]

25. I had stated as much in my post if you read through it. n/t

[jesus_of_suburbia]

55. I read your post and I don't see your point. Did you read AND understand my post?

[mzteris]

17. I'm not so sure I agree with all you're saying

as the ex-wife of a gay man (a bear, btw) (he accepted his gayness a few years after our divorce) - I can pretty much bet that if I came on to him, he'd still go for it- and we've been divorced for 27 years!

I also used to have a LOT of gay/lesbian friends I partied with (years after that marriage) and I was told by more than one gay man that I was the first woman that had ever "turned them on" - (and I wasn't even TRYING! lol...)

I think I might agree with the above poster that "everyone's born bi" - I'm going to have to think about this. People develop a preference as it were as we grow up based on our experiences and relationships and interactions. Not a "choice" - but a "what works" and "what doesn't" thing, ya know? Most people have a particular "type" they become sexually attracted to - though sometimes, people will come to care for, and love a person that they may have initially NOT been "attracted to" in the least. Although these days that's pretty rare - with the emphasis on hopping in the sack at the first available opportunity . . . if someone doesn't "turn you one" or they "turn you down" then people waste little more time on developing a relationship.

[vaberella]

24. I clearly made the difference in my post if you read it through again.

I never described them equal. I just said that I find there is NO BARRIER for love and sexual attraction in regards to anything. Unlike gender which has at times a clear barrier---love and sexual attraction are abstract and so they are relative.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

56. Vaberella - "I don't believe that people are born gay"

Honey, you made it quite clear.


I just want to give you a :hug: , because I think you need it.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. With Jarrett, she was using specific jargon of the Ex-gay crowd

and the administration has ties to McClurkin and others in that cult, they have employed and defended such people. She is a highly paid 'expert' in communications. She is either incompetent or more likely, very aggressively using that language as a weapon against gay people, as many of the preachers the administration likes have trained her to do. She was being a backhanded, backbiting, snippy old church lady, and she knows it. She knows it.
If the administration was not tied to Exodus, the Family, and all of the other Kribyjons and Warrens who designed the language Val employed, one might tend to think better of them, of her. But they are the people who employed and defended McClurkin, and he declared war on gay people and called us child killers, ya know? Barack wanted him at the table to discuss our rights. Called him a 'good, decent and moral person'. These things add up. To many of us, invective breathing hate preachers are not a charming cultural institution, they are like KKK people. Many here and in Obamaland refuse to understand how awful all of that 'vampires, we are at war, the gloves are off' shit sounds to others. And when the people who do that roll out Jarrett to speak of my family as objects, one thinks of the President saying only straight couples are 'sanctified by God', you know? As if he speaks for God, as if the job of politicians is to preach. What's the opposite of sanctified? Cursed. Or 'profane'.
So you know. You were born bi, it seems. But you did not pick that from some sale rack like a marked down coat.

[vaberella]

40. I think there's some confusion in what I see as bisexuality and what everyone else sees.

But maybe I'm a bigot...so I don't know. When I say bisexuality I say that I find people are born---just born. I don't think people are born strictly heterosexual or born strictly homosexual is my meaning. So I use bisexual to state that once a person becomes an adult and they start recognizing love and sexuality they diverge into what ever group the prefer.

Hence I put in perspective to me. I'm bisexual in the sense that I am willing for anyone who I love and I'm sexually attracted too and vice versa, irregardless of sex. I don't believe people are really born one or the other---because love and sexuality have no barrier.


But maybe most people aren't seeing where I'm coming from or I might be a bigot for thinking the way I do. And I think that maybe the case. I think only post 10 really understood where I was coming from by utilizing the word preference in the chance you decide to spend the time with the one you love irrespective of gender. I don't know if that's clear or if I'm repeating the same thing. I use bisexual to say I'm open to any gender as long as I love them and I am sexually attracted to them.

[Meldread]

19. I understand what you're saying, but...

Let me start first by addressing the whole Valerie Jarrett thing. People were angry over the phrase "lifestyle choice" - which is a code word. The right wing have used the word lifestyle to encompass every negative gay stereotype they could jam into it: promiscuous, STD filled, recruit-your-children-to-the-gay, pedophiles. In fact, one of the reasons they use the word lifestyle is to not only insinuate that being gay is a choice, but to further their argument that gays are trying to prey upon children to either "recruit" or molest them. As a gay man, when someone says lifestyle - that's what I hear.

That may not have been Valerie's intention; I can't know what goes on in her mind. I can only know the meaning of the word. Furthermore, some people felt that the way she talked about his family it was essentially saying: "He came from a good family, it wasn't their fault that he was gay! Don't blame the family because he was gay and killed himself! They're good people!"

When people listened and / or read her comments that's what they heard. Again, whether or not it was her intention only Valerie knows the truth, but that's how a lot of people interpreted her comments.

What further hurt Valerie wasn't just the words she used. It is the actions of the Obama Administration. There is a strong feeling within the gay community, even before he was nominated as the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate, that he wasn't gay-friendly. There were incidents where, like when he talked about reaching out to Republicans, he talked about reaching out to the religious right to build bridges and find common ground. Of course, the religious right hates gay people. It would be the equivalent of a Democratic Candidate saying, "We need to build bridges and reach out to the KKK. I'm certain we can find common ground on some issues." It doesn't go over well, and obviously if a candidate would say such a thing, Black Voters would rightfully shun said candidate.

Obama made many promises to LGBT people but has neglected them. LGBT people are used to being given promises by candidates when they want money, only to be betrayed or forgotten when said candidate is elected. That's how Obama is viewed, among many LBGT people that supported him in the primaries and general election (though many gays - certainly the majority of vocal gays on DU went to support Hillary for the aforementioned reasons).

Anyway, it was with all of this going on in the background that Valerie's comments were heard. So rightfully or wrongfully, her comments were received in the most negative light possible. To many LGBT people, her comments merely reflected what they long suspected about the Obama Administration.

Now as to your view, you seem to be supporting some type of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale">Kinsey scale model of sexuality. A lot of LGBT people accept the scale, but I think you're taking your personal bisexuality and attempting to apply it too broadly to others. On the scale, I'd definitely be a six. I have virtually zero sexual attraction to women, but more importantly virtually zero romantic attraction as well.

Certainly, I can look at a woman and consider her pretty or beautiful. But if I were to use those words, they wouldn't be used in a sexual context. Could I have sex with a woman if I had to? Yes, probably. But it wouldn't be fair to the woman, to be blunt, it'd be the equivalent of using her body as a living sex toy. Suffice it to say, if a woman doubted I was gay, after having sex there would be little doubt. She'd either consider me to be gay, or some crazy uptight religious zealot who believes sex is evil and therefore would only engage in it reluctantly as a means of procreation. Definitely one of the two.

More importantly, though, I think too much focus is given to the act of sexual attraction. Sex has very little to do with sexual orientation in my view. It should be defined as "romantic orientation." Sexual desire is a byproduct of romantic desire. It's the difference between lust (using another individual for personal gratification) and love. If for some reason I fell in love with a man who couldn't have sex, then well - that's fine. It's not about the sex, it's about the love. When I close my eyes and envision a future mate, it's a man. Always a man. It's never a woman, even accidentally or on occasion. A woman has never given me the feelings of butterflies in the stomach, or anything even remotely approaching a crush. I've "loved" women for their friendship, yes - but love only in a strictly non-romantic platonic way.

It's difficult to describe the difference between loving a man and loving a woman, seeing as how I've never loved a woman. I can't explain why I'm romantically attracted to men over women, I just am. I know it wasn't an active choice - I didn't wake up one day and just decide to love men. For the longest time growing up I did everything I could to change and love women instead - didn't work, I tried.

I don't know what creates sexual orientation, but I'm quite certain it's hard coded.

[ruggerson]

20. Very well said

thanks Meldread

[boppers]

22. Interesting post!

Since there's so much in there, I'm only going to take a small piece:
"I don't know what creates sexual orientation, but I'm quite certain it's hard coded."

We know from twin studies that it's not 100% genetic. We know that there is a strong correlation, but it's not the only factor. Sibling order is also a studied factor, but that's really, really, hard to do twin studies on (without many IVF twins born years apart and raised in different families....). There are religious factors, cultural factors, etc. It's not simple.

So, I guess it really depends on what you mean by "hard coded". So, I'll single out another sentence in your excellent post:
"I know it wasn't an active choice - I didn't wake up one day and just decide to love men."

I never really made a choice to love *any* specific gender type, I just consistently found myself attracted to a given "people type", to be specific, I am most attracted to gender-fluid people, be they effeminate men, or very masculine women, or people who simply push lines and boundaries. I didn't really make that choice, but I can't say that my life experiences aren't what "coded" that into me.

[vaberella]

23. Thanks for this. I believe a poster above said the same.

I think I did not pick up on the term "lifestyle" in her wording as a code and hence I had my own misunderstanding ---because I was seriously conflicted on this.

I don't want to turn the conversation into a defense of Obama, but I figured that was more a political thing. I have come to realize that I believe even Obama knew what sort of duress he would be working under. The political environment and that many people in the religious right have political power, clout and are themselves in politics. Further more, his statement was to basically give them some sense of belonging especially when it comes to the political debate---or it being seen that way by the MSM. Neither really worked, and I think after the health care debate we can see that Obama really doesn't bother too much with reaching out to them UNLESS it's post a bill being passed and he says----bipartisan bill. But he rarely speaks about reaching across the isles. I think we have to differentiate the man versus the politics---sadly I think he plays both simultaneously and with the crappy history we've had with government--especially for those in minority groups. It's hard for us to trust the man when we've been 'fucked', for lack of a better word, in the past.

As for the promises I think I have to say he's done a great deal. Admittedly I see myself as bisexual and have many close friends who are gay so I do consider myself an active part of the LGBT community and I have to say that I think he's done more than most other Presidents and I've counted each and everyone one of them. Yes, they aren't' sweeping massive changes, but they are different ones than given before. He's provided massive AIDS funding in the US and donated money for clinics to be built for AIDS funding in Puerto Rico. He's really given voice and even apologized to an LGBT couple who were denied hospital visitation rights. He's pushed for the Matthew Shepherd law to be put in place and advocated for it---as part of a hate crime. I believe his admin has the most people who are part of the LGBT in it than most other admins. I mean these are things that were vegetating for so long. He's spoken against the repeal of prop 8 in California. I don't see those things as failures or a lack of commitment from this admin. I can see it not being satisfactory but I do see some serious changes and I appreciate it. Definitely it's not fast enough or large enough but there are some realistic changes underway.

Not to mention I do feel that he's made serious headway with getting DADT repealed and he is definitely going to push the repeal of DOMA. I mean I trust him more than other presidents and hence this could be naivete on my part, but I think he's sincere and his past actions or the admins's past actions prove that. I don't think he's neglected us, he's just slow on it---that's for sure. He hasn't done much for the Black community either---and I'm also Black. I think he's done far less for the Black community to be honest--in relation to all other minority groups at the moment. Of course, I'm not trying this a 'versus' conversation though...it's just a point of reflection.

You could possibly be right into how I look at sexuality. I never really looked at it in so far as a scientific term nor do I think there is a level to it. As I said it's relative. Which goes into your next statements. I never defined my point of view as sexual attraction alone---I separate it with romantic attraction. I don't think it's set in stone that someone cannot fall in love or have sexual attraction for someone else at any given time in their life. They just probably never met a person who could do that. That's not to say it can't happen. When I was growing up I actually thought I must have been asexual until I realized that it's far from that----I just don't mind either and I had not found people to peak my interest when I was younger. As I got older I did find various people who provided and/or for me at varying degrees. I never really scaled it and I kind of find it weird to scale it. I think people are born bisexual mainly because I do believe that love and sexual attraction has no barrier when it comes to gender. I don't think those abstract things are limited in regards to the human race. While for animals it may happen due to instinct, for us it's done on a grander scale and hence my point. I find by saying, "Oh well I'm just hetero." I'm kind of like---there's plenty of room for you to possibly be attracted or romantically moved by someone of the same sex.

Further more, I don't think these abstract things are active choices. I think it just happens. One day you're walking by and you see this woman and a flair up or you see a man and flair up. Or you get to know someone and you're like wow---I could see spending my life with this person irrespective of gender. You can decide whether or not to pursue it, but I think it can happen at any given time in one's life.

[Hekate]

30. Meldread, between you and Vaberella this is one of the most thoughtful exchanges here in days

I've enjoyed reading Vaberella's attempt to process new information and put it in context with her/his life, and I've appreciated your thoughtful responses.

Thanks to both of you.

Hekate

[vaberella]

36. I think Mimosa is the one who really grasped my thoughts properly in post 10.nt

[Hekate]

38. That too

:hi:

[Iggo]

21. Every gay person I've ever asked said they were born that way.

Does that help you?

[vaberella]

26. No, because I know many gays who believe in both.

They were born gay or bisexual. One of my friends likes women and has been in several relationships with women or men, but just prefers men. But he doesn't define himself as bisexual.

[Iggo]

28. Fuck it. I'm not doing this.

Peace.

[vaberella]

31. Okay. n/t

[Bluebear]

27. 'since I don't believe that people are born gay' - well, that explains a lot.

[vaberella]

32. What does it explain?

Did you read my entire post...I also said, "I don't believe people are born heterosexual either." I figure everyone is born bisexual.

[boppers]

37. "I figure everyone is born bisexual."... isn't that far from thinking:

"Everyone is born straight".

It's an assumption that there is a universal.

How about "everybody is born unique"?

[vaberella]

39. I think the best explanation of what I think is along the lines of post.# 10.

I guess then that would mean I am a bigot...is what you're saying when I think the way I do. Because I definitely don't think people are born straight.

Edited to try to be more clear: I think that love and sexual attraction are really what leads people to choose to commit to one person of a particular gender. I don't believe people are born with being strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. I use the term bisexual as more of clinical way to say it can be either/or dependent on those emotions. But I can see someone being strictly one way. But I'm noticing for some that this may be seen as bigotry. I never knew that.

[boppers]

29. "I don't believe that people are born gay"

Vabrella: Some people don't believe that you were born bisexual. They believe that all people are born straight, and those who say otherwise are liars/sinners/etc.

As a gut check, how does that feel?

So, can I offer you a different thought?

All people are conceived with a variety of sexuality possibilities (because evolution knows no reason, so it totally makes "random sense" to keep changing varieties), and because of that:
There are people born very straight,
people born very gay,
people born attracted to "the feminine" regardless of their plumbing,
people are born attracted to big hairy people,
people who are into those with breasts *and* penises (separately or in the same person),
people who are attracted to wealth (regardless of sex),
people attracted to the elderly,
....people attracted to just about anything and everything you can think of.

(Visit a well-stocked porn store if you have any doubt of this).

So, that's birth, but after being born, a *huge* amount of things shape us, and develop us, as we mature. You may be born thinking of the elderly as attractive, but only have younger social partners available. You may be into women, but mercilessly beat by them as you develop, and lose the ability to relate to them. There are millions of possibilities, so how you were born, and how you develop, affect one's adult sexuality....

Which leads to a quantum jump ahead of being born one way, another, or only on a limited spectrum of straight/bi/gay. You can be born many, many, ways, and become many, many, things. Some people stay the way they're born, some change a little, some change a lot. Some even change many times over a lifetime.

[vaberella]

33. Well...that's my point.

You're not posting anything really different from what I've said. I've mainly asked that because I don't believe people are born gay vice versa for heterosexual...am I a bigot?! I ask this because Ms. Jarrett was accused of being a bigot.

I also said that people are born with a variety of sexual possibilities----hence the reason I said bisexual. I figure that is synonymous with variety---you can go either towards men or women. I see no barrier to sexual attraction or love---their abstract and can be directed at anyone.

I don't look at bisexual as being in love with both. I can see myself having a monogamous relationship with one. Which then would mean I am either gay or heterosexual. But I would never be dating both at the same time. I think there is a misunderstanding in the way I use bisexual.

[boppers]

41. The last 50 years of context would help.

Some people are born gay. Some are born bi. Some like fur. Some wear diapers. Some wear leather.

Whatever.

Is Jarrett a bigot? I don't know her, but she was talking about helping people.

To quote you, though:
"Which then would mean I am either gay or heterosexual."

Nope.

Wrong.

That's binary thinking.

Read these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism

You can be gay *and* heterosexual *and* lesbian *and* bisexual *and* queer *and* transsexual *and* transgendered, and many other things.

You scratched at it in the OP, but you haven't made the mental jump. You can be gay *and* heterosexual, because such labels are not dualistic.

[vaberella]

42. I don't get your thinking.

How does wearing fur or wearing leather have to do with being born gay or straight. My point is that I think once a person reaches an age of sexual awareness and romantic love are they able to determine their sexual preference. Until then they can have either at birth--that's what I meant by bisexual. Can you explain to me how I can be gay and hetero---on here it's an and/or situation or your bi -and it's not until you are with someone either of the same gender or opposite gender do you end up being gay or hetero...

[boppers]

52. Know any furries?

My point is that there's a vastly wider sexual universe than a gay/bi/straight single continuum, and that through one's life, they may discover who they are in many different ways other than having a single label.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

44. Not bigoted, just ignorant.

Bi folks tend to think everyone is born bi. I have heard that from just about every bi person I have ever encountered. (Living in SF for 40+ years, that means a whole lot.) I think you are overlaying your personal experience onto others.

Most gays and lesbians I know are pretty hardwired to their orientation. Most straights I know are as well. Are their a few I know who have dabble outside their orientation? Yes, but most of those have remained what they are hardwired to be -- whether it is gay, straight, or bi.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. So gay is something you "just kind of go with" depending on who you may be attracted to.

Oh boy, now I've heard it all. Twisting yourself into a three-dimensional pretzel in order to defend a TRULY bigoted remark made by one of President Obama's CLOSEST friends and advisors isn't becoming in any way shape or form.

My daughter recently told me she was gay before she had any clue what being gay or sex was.

Yes, some people choose a sexual orientation that often leads to humiliation, discrimination, and too often, death because they "just kind of went with" who they loved or were attracted to. Yeah. Riiiight.

Confused isn't all you are...

[totodeinhere]

49. People are tying to blow her comments out of proportion.

She used a poor choice of words and she apologized. End of story.

[mitchtv]

51. not just a poor choice of words

a truly nasty onel But if you don't get it, I can't help you

[bigwillq]

53. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[lunatica]

50. When you have no control over who you're sexually attracted to

You are what that attraction shows. You are born gay or straight or whatever you want to call yourself. Perhaps the fact that you're attracted to both sexes makes it hard for you to understand what it is to NOT BE ATTRACTED to one sex or the other.

I have no choice in who I'm attracted to, and it's always been men. It really isn't a choice.

[KossackRealityCheck]

57. You are bisexual and therefore you don't exist

in the politically correct language of this debate. Your experience as Bi contradicts the dominant narrative of gender theory.

That said, I think you are wrong about many gay, lesbian and transgendered people. Almost all my friends who identify as GLT say they knew what they were from infancy. I remember one M-F T friend explaining how when she was playing house at age 3, she just knew she was supposed to be the mother and not the father. Brain scan studies back this up -- many GLT people are indeed born that way and it's not a choice.

The sad thing is both sides are right. For a certain number of people, especially Bi people, who they love is a choice. For many GLT people it isn't.

It is not appropriate to refer to "choice" when referring to the wrong group.

That doesn't mean -- here I agree with you -- that this makes the person using the wrong language a bigot.

[saltpoint]

58. I'd just like to take the opportunity to say a few more

very negative things about Bryan Fischer, who is shamefully blaming the deaths by suicide of the young people in the recent news on gay-straight alliances in colleges and high schools around the nation.

That is the most vile form of propaganda there is, and the highest possible stakes.

When Fischer puts his own name on that kind of debasing, hateful crap, he becomes an instrument in those students' suffering.

[Enthusiast]

60. But people are born gay.

There is no question in my mind that people have their sexual preferences predetermined by their genetic makeup. How can you think otherwise? Would an elementary school boy choose to be gay so they can then become the target of constant abuse? I think many kids born gay try for years to be heterosexual only to fail miserably.