To Bi or Not To Bi?

[Jason Tandro]

My friend claims that he is bisexual. I claim he is straight as a ruler.

He get's bent out of shape whenever I make a slightly offensive joke about homosexuals (and you all know that I am Mr. Tolerant, having two gay siblings). When I get pissed at him (which happens more often than I'd like) I will sometimes call him "Fag", which I know is wrong but when you're mad you do anything to get somebody's goat.

He claims that he has a right to be upset because he is bisexual. I say, that's nonsense. If he was just a concerned citizen who didn't like to hear the word, I'd say "fine, valid argument" and drop it, but he claims he is bisexual.

He has never had a gay experience.
He had feelings of attraction for one man (and I believe one tiny kiss).
He has said he has no interest in any manner of gay sex.

One minor attraction does not a homosexual person make. Homosexuality is defined as a repeated pattern of attraction of action, and I believe that if you haven't had gay sex or at least been dating a guy, you aren't gay yet. I realize this view might seem a little odd, but as I've said, I think that straight is God's default in that hetero sex is the only way to procreate. No offense to those of you who are homosexual, these are just my views.

And don't give me that "bi-curious" nonsense. If he was truly curious then he would not be against the idea of trying gay sex.

Anyways I use this to claim that my friend is not in fact bisexual but merely wants to status so that he can take a morally indignant stance whenever I cross minor lines (which as I've said before isn't really necessary).

Now maybe there are other factors. My friend is the kind of guy who is so far to left he's hit the rumble strip and crashed into a bicycle. Always has to be at the forefront of any liberal battle and swallows agenda and rhetoric like Flintstone's vitamins. No backbone, just believes whatever his party tells him to believe. Fiercely anti-religion and anti-Republican. He is, in fact, making a version of A Christmas Carol but refuses to use anything remotely Christian. Me and my roommate Jacob have told him he's an idiot.

But I digress. Given the above how do you find my friend?

[Freedan]

Under those circumstances, I would normally suggest "still in the closet". But the fact that he readily calls himself bi kind of shoots that to hell.

To me, it sounds like he's calling himself bi so he can speak as an authority on behalf of the non-straight. If someone argues with him, he can declare that as a bi, he knows this and that about their plight.

[tay120n64]

I think Freedan stole my comment, lol.

But yeah, definitely straight. I had a similar dilemma back in college when I couldn't decide if I was straight or bi. Finally I realized that I'm just really comfortable with myself. I'm not interested in gay sex, but I'm not made uncomfortable by it and related stimuli either.

[Jason Tandro]

I've never been turned on by anything remotely gay, but that's probably because I have an unpleasant childhood trauma which I feel no need to go into further at the present time.

For me, I've always been fascinated at how anybody could be attracted by the majority of men. Women are

1) much more attractive
2) much more fun
3) much more pleasant.

Lesbians I can see, except the ones that try to be men anyways and ruin the effect. Plus which two girls kissing is hot.

But seriously.

[psychokind]

definetely bisexual. the moment you're looking at another man and seeing him as a object of desire, you're gay or bisexual. a real straight would be disgustet just by the thought of that.

that's not a question of believe or perception, that's biology. same thing like you get shivers when thinking of your extremely attractive sister lying naked in front of you. finding her attractive just for a split second is so sick it makes me puke.

[EverPhoenix]

id say he can only call himself bi when hes at least had the intent to pursue physical relations with a male. otherwise, straight.

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

definetely bisexual. the moment you're looking at another man and seeing him as a object of desire, you're gay or bisexual. a real straight would be disgustet just by the thought of that.

By that logic, the moment I think about shooting the idiot that nearly ran me over, I'm a murderer.

The moment I ask my gf if I can tie her up, I am a rapist.

The moment I think about how cool it would be to have a Wii, I'm a thief.

You can't judge a character by momentary thoughts or even momentary lapses in judgement. A person is the sum of his actions, not his thoughts. That's the same argument that people are using to try and ban violent video games.

Pretending to kill something, and actually doing it, are two separate functions.

[Ratty Randnums]

Um, not really. An attraction and an action are two different things. Though Jesus did say "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." -Matthew 5:28

Your friend I would say sounds like a 1 or a 2 on "the Kinsey scale" (if he outright claims it he's at least a two I think, practically everybody could be classified as a 1). But I don't see why it matters. I know a guy who claimed to be bisexual to attract women- and it worked. (Lives with two girlfriends currently) But toned it down after men actually hit on him I think. X3
But yeah if he wants to have sex with a guy, he's at least incidentally gay.
Also I'm a fan of both melons and berries myself, if that matters in the discussion.

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

By that logic, the moment I think about shooting the idiot that nearly ran me over, I'm a murderer. The moment I ask my gf if I can tie her up, I am a rapist. The moment I think about how cool it would be to have a Wii, I'm a thief. You can't judge a character by momentary thoughts or even momentary lapses in judgement. A person is the sum of his actions, not his thoughts. That's the same argument that people are using to try and ban violent video games. Pretending to kill something, and actually doing it, are two separate functions.

you missed my point there. I'm talking about a biological barrier that's "normally" inside us, like the one preventing incest.

killing somebody, stealing, even raping are normal human thoughts, humans are natural born killers in any way.

[Jason Tandro]

Duly noted, but humans are capable of ANYTHING. Environmental factors, upbringing and even our own biology is what shapes us into killers, rapists, thieves, incestees, and so forth. Also lifestyles such as being religious, being vegan or being homosexual are decided by a collection of a prolonged exposure to certain feelings and the acceptance of these feelings.

My friend is no homo, and he's not bi. He's just an idiot.

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Duly noted, but humans are capable of ANYTHING. Environmental factors, upbringing and even our own biology is what shapes us into killers, rapists, thieves, incestees, and so forth. Also lifestyles such as being religious, being vegan or being homosexual are decided by a collection of a prolonged exposure to certain feelings and the acceptance of these feelings. My friend is no homo, and he's not bi. He's just an idiot.

feelings can change, homosexuality often can't be. so there are times when somebody just has a screw loose, and others when somebody is born that way.

and of course you're right, we're truly capable of ANYTHING but there still are biological borders one can only cross through damage in his human nature. example we're talking about here is incest and homosexuality. this is without valuation, I just don't know how to replace the word "damage".

like a vegan/thick person getting sick/after-effects because of weight/lack of nutrition. his naturally given sense of his body for the need of individual nutrients is damaged, and not working correctly anymore.

[EverPhoenix]

psychokind wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: Duly noted, but humans are capable of ANYTHING. Environmental factors, upbringing and even our own biology is what shapes us into killers, rapists, thieves, incestees, and so forth. Also lifestyles such as being religious, being vegan or being homosexual are decided by a collection of a prolonged exposure to certain feelings and the acceptance of these feelings. My friend is no homo, and he's not bi. He's just an idiot. feelings can change, homosexuality often can't be. so there are times when somebody just has a screw loose, and others when somebody is born that way. and of course you're right, we're truly capable of ANYTHING but there still are biological borders one can only cross through damage in his human nature. example we're talking about here is incest and homosexuality. this is without valuation, I just don't know how to replace the word "damage". like a vegan/thick person getting sick/after-effects because of weight/lack of nutrition. his naturally given sense of his body for the need of individual nutrients is damaged, and not working correctly anymore.

i think its good that we've managed to refine ourselves so much. it makes the "damage" factor. it means that life is now more interesting than the generic eat/sleep/mate mould every other animal adheres to. although thats most probably due to our brains having evolved further.

it means people have the right to make decisions about what they do with themselves, what they eat, who they engage in sexual activity with... and yet still keep their hand in our gene pool. amazing, isnt it.

[psychokind]

EverPhoenix wrote:

i think its good that we've managed to refine ourselves so much. it makes the "damage" factor. it means that life is now more interesting than the generic eat/sleep/mate mould every other animal adheres to. although thats most probably due to our brains having evolved further. it means people have the right to make decisions about what they do with themselves, what they eat, who they engage in sexual activity with... and yet still keep their hand in our gene pool. amazing, isnt it.

we were never only eat/sleep/mate animals^^ the range of our abstract thinking and activities gets bigger, and that's a good thing.

if you reach the point when people have the right to do anything they want with themselves while nobody cares and everybody tolerates, even if it's against human nature, then it's decadence.

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

if you reach the point when people have the right to do anything they want with themselves while nobody cares and everybody tolerates, even if it's against human nature, then it's decadence.

True but that is a double-sided argument. Playing devil's advocate here, who are we to decide what rights should be allowed and what should be denied. Moral majority?

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

psychokind wrote: if you reach the point when people have the right to do anything they want with themselves while nobody cares and everybody tolerates, even if it's against human nature, then it's decadence. True but that is a double-sided argument. Playing devil's advocate here, who are we to decide what rights should be allowed and what should be denied. Moral majority?

uh. when it comes to morality, I'm the wrong counterpart. I'd say we do what ever makes our society the most efficient, that'd mean no unnecessary deaths (no more sacrifice for gods, gun control, punishing murderers) and therefore birth control. everybody can live in peace and we still got decent selection