There's no such thing as a 'heterosexual' or a 'homosexual.'
I was recently filling in a form and came to the 'Equal Opportunities' section which asked me what my sexual 'orientation' was.
This is fairly commonplace and seems at first a sensible question - the answers given were 'gay,' 'straight,' or 'bisexual.'
Obviously, these terms nowadays mean sexual/romantic attraction to members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex or members of both sexes respectively. (Traditionally of course though gay means carefree and happy.)
However there are several flaws here. The question makes the immediate assumption that it is undebatable that we all have an inbuilt sexual 'orientation' and hence fit into one of these categories.
This is wrong though. Taking the second part of the point, there is no reason one cannot be attracted to animals (zoosexual,) or children (paedosexual) or corpses (necrosexual) and etc.
And this is besides the point - no matter how many people claim to have been 'born gay,' or 'born straight,' there is no conclusive proof to suggest this at all.
Someone saying that they are a heterosexual,' would imply that the only possible attraction they could ever feel at any time would be to a human being of the opposite sex (whether an adult or child is irrelevant.)
However this is ridiculous - how can they possibly know this, other than a 'little feeling' telling them? How can someone for instance at the age of 15 turn around and tell his parents he is 'homosexual' or 'paedosexual?'
It's no more logical than someone saying he/she has a 'brunette orientation,' meaning they are only ever going to be attracted to someone with brunette hair. Or a 'Dwarfism orientation' which could mean they'd only be attracted to people unfortunate enough to have primordial dwarfism.
So for these reasons, the question "Are you straight, gay, or bisexual" is void. It makes the implication that these are the only valid forms of sexuall attraction to hold.
The truth is we are all indeed equal and without positive concrete evidence to suggest we do have an 'inbuilt sexuality,' then the default would be that we are born effectively with the potential to develop attraction to anyone and/or anything. Sigmund Freud was on to this when he claimed we were all born 'bisexual.'
Having said that though, the vast majority of people (due to procreative instinct) tend to form monogamous opposite-sex relationships. From studies we can estimate that around 1-1.5% of the UK population form monogamous same-sex relationships. And a few others form polyamorous relationships, or engage in sexual activity with animals, children etc...
We may have moral objections to unconsenting sex (i.e. with animals or with young children,) yet we cannot criticise attraction towards these activities.
May I say also that I am not for one minute suggesting we choose what we find attractive - I'm purely saying that we can be attracted to anyone and anything and a lot of relationships and sexual activity are purely circumstantial.
For the reasons outlined, therefore, referring to 'gay' people or 'straight' people is ridiculous. The only time this can be described is after someone's death.
When I see the term 'gay marriage' - I become instantly irritated. As not only does it make the assumption that we all have a genetic 'sexuality,' it makes a suggestion of a type of marriage only for those who have been attracted to members of the same sex.
The other attempt at reasoning that annoys me is when people compare 'sexual 'orientation'' to race. You must be completely deluded if you see a proven innate and hereditary characteristic as on the same footing as something made up.
In fact equality law should be completely changed and 'sexual orientation' must be corrected to 'types of sexual attraction experienced.'
I think the (extremely talented) musician Mika summed this up perfectly: "I’ve never ever labeled myself. But having said that; I’ve never limited my life, I’ve never limited who I sleep with. So, whatever. Call me whatever you want. Call me bisexual, if you need a term for me"
So I'll start the ball rolling - I'm a human being who so far has had attractions to men and women, people with brown hair, blonde hair, blue eyes, intelligent people etc...
(But no animals/corpses yet.)
This is fairly commonplace and seems at first a sensible question - the answers given were 'gay,' 'straight,' or 'bisexual.'
Obviously, these terms nowadays mean sexual/romantic attraction to members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex or members of both sexes respectively. (Traditionally of course though gay means carefree and happy.)
However there are several flaws here. The question makes the immediate assumption that it is undebatable that we all have an inbuilt sexual 'orientation' and hence fit into one of these categories.
This is wrong though. Taking the second part of the point, there is no reason one cannot be attracted to animals (zoosexual,) or children (paedosexual) or corpses (necrosexual) and etc.
And this is besides the point - no matter how many people claim to have been 'born gay,' or 'born straight,' there is no conclusive proof to suggest this at all.
Someone saying that they are a heterosexual,' would imply that the only possible attraction they could ever feel at any time would be to a human being of the opposite sex (whether an adult or child is irrelevant.)
However this is ridiculous - how can they possibly know this, other than a 'little feeling' telling them? How can someone for instance at the age of 15 turn around and tell his parents he is 'homosexual' or 'paedosexual?'
It's no more logical than someone saying he/she has a 'brunette orientation,' meaning they are only ever going to be attracted to someone with brunette hair. Or a 'Dwarfism orientation' which could mean they'd only be attracted to people unfortunate enough to have primordial dwarfism.
So for these reasons, the question "Are you straight, gay, or bisexual" is void. It makes the implication that these are the only valid forms of sexuall attraction to hold.
The truth is we are all indeed equal and without positive concrete evidence to suggest we do have an 'inbuilt sexuality,' then the default would be that we are born effectively with the potential to develop attraction to anyone and/or anything. Sigmund Freud was on to this when he claimed we were all born 'bisexual.'
Having said that though, the vast majority of people (due to procreative instinct) tend to form monogamous opposite-sex relationships. From studies we can estimate that around 1-1.5% of the UK population form monogamous same-sex relationships. And a few others form polyamorous relationships, or engage in sexual activity with animals, children etc...
We may have moral objections to unconsenting sex (i.e. with animals or with young children,) yet we cannot criticise attraction towards these activities.
May I say also that I am not for one minute suggesting we choose what we find attractive - I'm purely saying that we can be attracted to anyone and anything and a lot of relationships and sexual activity are purely circumstantial.
For the reasons outlined, therefore, referring to 'gay' people or 'straight' people is ridiculous. The only time this can be described is after someone's death.
When I see the term 'gay marriage' - I become instantly irritated. As not only does it make the assumption that we all have a genetic 'sexuality,' it makes a suggestion of a type of marriage only for those who have been attracted to members of the same sex.
The other attempt at reasoning that annoys me is when people compare 'sexual 'orientation'' to race. You must be completely deluded if you see a proven innate and hereditary characteristic as on the same footing as something made up.
In fact equality law should be completely changed and 'sexual orientation' must be corrected to 'types of sexual attraction experienced.'
I think the (extremely talented) musician Mika summed this up perfectly: "I’ve never ever labeled myself. But having said that; I’ve never limited my life, I’ve never limited who I sleep with. So, whatever. Call me whatever you want. Call me bisexual, if you need a term for me"
So I'll start the ball rolling - I'm a human being who so far has had attractions to men and women, people with brown hair, blonde hair, blue eyes, intelligent people etc...
(But no animals/corpses yet.)
Scroll to see replies
I find women attractive, I can see myself in a relationship with a woman. I do not find men attractive, I have never seen myself in a relationship with that man. Therefore, as far as I and everyone else is concerned, at this point in time, I am heterosexual and I class myself as so. That is what these forms are asking.
You can look at sexuality in the way you have described if you like, but it's confusing and pointless, I would say that almost every mature person on the planet could class themselves as straight, gay or bisexual, so I disagree with what you are saying.
You can look at sexuality in the way you have described if you like, but it's confusing and pointless, I would say that almost every mature person on the planet could class themselves as straight, gay or bisexual, so I disagree with what you are saying.
At the ages of puberty, girls and boys on the whole know who they are attracted to.
the thread regards there is no homosexuality or hereosexulity, without them therefore cannot be a bisexuality either which leaves us where?
you talk about attraction, that doesn't define ones sexuality. it plays a small part. gay men can find women attractive and vice versa - doesnt mean he wants to go off and make babies with her.
you overlook alot other mechanisms, bio & genetics, politics, socialisation.........point of this thread is what?
the thread regards there is no homosexuality or hereosexulity, without them therefore cannot be a bisexuality either which leaves us where?
you talk about attraction, that doesn't define ones sexuality. it plays a small part. gay men can find women attractive and vice versa - doesnt mean he wants to go off and make babies with her.
you overlook alot other mechanisms, bio & genetics, politics, socialisation.........point of this thread is what?
Sexuality (and asexuality) is rather fluid and is a spectrum rather than a set of camps, yes. That being said, there's nothing wrong with mentioning a preference. Personally, I tend to prefer chocolate milkshake most of the time. But I may, once in a while, choose vanilla. But if I have one vanilla milkshake for each nine chocolate ones, then I obviously have an bigger preference for chocolate, so it makes sense to tell people that's what I like.
Yes, there is. Plus, nobody is actually going to read that.
May I also add - that I don't believe discrimination on the basis of sexual attraction should be allowed, as I believe who/what we happen to be attracted to at any time to be a factor we cannot influence.
However when you look at things, this rarely happens. In fact, when people accuse others of discriminating on the grounds of sexual 'orientation,' they are mostly incorrect.
Let's take the case of the elderly Christian B&B owners who were prosecuted and fined (wrongly in my opinion) for their objection to allowing two men to share a bed.
From the outset, many may think this is 'homophobia.' However, let's actually look at the facts.
Homophobia, as I think we can agree means fear of intolerance of i) those who identify as homosexual ii) those in a same-sex relationship iii) those who have homosexual sex.
The elderly couple here i) did not have any idea of how the men identified sexually ii) did not know for sure whether they were in a same-sex relationship or whether they were 2 friends who wanted to share a bed to save on costs iii) did not know whether the two men had engaged in homosexual sex
Therefore there was no evidence of homophobia here. The alleged 'discrimination' was on the grounds that it would be 2 men sharing a bed.
Now, it is quite clear that the act of 2 men sharing a bed is a form of conscious choice the 2 men would have made. The elderly couple opposed this form of activity. It is important to state here that it is irrelevant what the cause of this opposition is, however in this case it is religious belief.
The fact that the elderly couple were prosecuted, for me sends an extemely worrying picture out. In this case, a judge has stated that it was illegal for this couple to not allow 2 men to share a bed.
If we make it illegal for business owners to discriminate on the basis of conscious choices others make - then this would mean every single business could face prosection. If you have to put up with 2 men sharing a bed, you would surely have to put up with 3 sharing a bed. Or with naturists claiming that it is 'discrimination' that they are not allowed to wander around nude in public.
And by the way I would feel exactly the same if the hoteliers objected to the notion of a man and a woman sharing a bed.
Finally, before anyone feels like making a fallacious argument, I'll stop you. This scenario is absolutely not comparable with the hotels which refused to admit black or Irish people in the 1970s. For starters, these racist hotels did not allow people in on the basis of their race. And as I've explained above, race is a hereditary/genetic characteristic, one that is instantly noticeable and verifiable, whereas we don't even know if 'sexuality' exists.
Please can as many people post here as possible - as I want to ensure a lively debate!
However when you look at things, this rarely happens. In fact, when people accuse others of discriminating on the grounds of sexual 'orientation,' they are mostly incorrect.
Let's take the case of the elderly Christian B&B owners who were prosecuted and fined (wrongly in my opinion) for their objection to allowing two men to share a bed.
From the outset, many may think this is 'homophobia.' However, let's actually look at the facts.
Homophobia, as I think we can agree means fear of intolerance of i) those who identify as homosexual ii) those in a same-sex relationship iii) those who have homosexual sex.
The elderly couple here i) did not have any idea of how the men identified sexually ii) did not know for sure whether they were in a same-sex relationship or whether they were 2 friends who wanted to share a bed to save on costs iii) did not know whether the two men had engaged in homosexual sex
Therefore there was no evidence of homophobia here. The alleged 'discrimination' was on the grounds that it would be 2 men sharing a bed.
Now, it is quite clear that the act of 2 men sharing a bed is a form of conscious choice the 2 men would have made. The elderly couple opposed this form of activity. It is important to state here that it is irrelevant what the cause of this opposition is, however in this case it is religious belief.
The fact that the elderly couple were prosecuted, for me sends an extemely worrying picture out. In this case, a judge has stated that it was illegal for this couple to not allow 2 men to share a bed.
If we make it illegal for business owners to discriminate on the basis of conscious choices others make - then this would mean every single business could face prosection. If you have to put up with 2 men sharing a bed, you would surely have to put up with 3 sharing a bed. Or with naturists claiming that it is 'discrimination' that they are not allowed to wander around nude in public.
And by the way I would feel exactly the same if the hoteliers objected to the notion of a man and a woman sharing a bed.
Finally, before anyone feels like making a fallacious argument, I'll stop you. This scenario is absolutely not comparable with the hotels which refused to admit black or Irish people in the 1970s. For starters, these racist hotels did not allow people in on the basis of their race. And as I've explained above, race is a hereditary/genetic characteristic, one that is instantly noticeable and verifiable, whereas we don't even know if 'sexuality' exists.
Please can as many people post here as possible - as I want to ensure a lively debate!
Original post by ollyb96
I was recently filling in a form and came to the 'Equal Opportunities' section which asked me what my sexual 'orientation' was.
This is fairly commonplace and seems at first a sensible question - the answers given were 'gay,' 'straight,' or 'bisexual.'
Obviously, these terms nowadays mean sexual/romantic attraction to members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex or members of both sexes respectively. (Traditionally of course though gay means carefree and happy.)
However there are several flaws here. The question makes the immediate assumption that it is undebatable that we all have an inbuilt sexual 'orientation' and hence fit into one of these categories.
This is wrong though. Taking the second part of the point, there is no reason one cannot be attracted to animals (zoosexual,) or children (paedosexual) or corpses (necrosexual) and etc.
And this is besides the point - no matter how many people claim to have been 'born gay,' or 'born straight,' there is no conclusive proof to suggest this at all.
Someone saying that they are a heterosexual,' would imply that the only possible attraction they could ever feel at any time would be to a human being of the opposite sex (whether an adult or child is irrelevant.)
However this is ridiculous - how can they possibly know this, other than a 'little feeling' telling them? How can someone for instance at the age of 15 turn around and tell his parents he is 'homosexual' or 'paedosexual?'
It's no more logical than someone saying he/she has a 'brunette orientation,' meaning they are only ever going to be attracted to someone with brunette hair. Or a 'Dwarfism orientation' which could mean they'd only be attracted to people unfortunate enough to have primordial dwarfism.
So for these reasons, the question "Are you straight, gay, or bisexual" is void. It makes the implication that these are the only valid forms of sexuall attraction to hold.
The truth is we are all indeed equal and without positive concrete evidence to suggest we do have an 'inbuilt sexuality,' then the default would be that we are born effectively with the potential to develop attraction to anyone and/or anything. Sigmund Freud was on to this when he claimed we were all born 'bisexual.'
Having said that though, the vast majority of people (due to procreative instinct) tend to form monogamous opposite-sex relationships. From studies we can estimate that around 1-1.5% of the UK population form monogamous same-sex relationships. And a few others form polyamorous relationships, or engage in sexual activity with animals, children etc...
We may have moral objections to unconsenting sex (i.e. with animals or with young children,) yet we cannot criticise attraction towards these activities.
May I say also that I am not for one minute suggesting we choose what we find attractive - I'm purely saying that we can be attracted to anyone and anything and a lot of relationships and sexual activity are purely circumstantial.
For the reasons outlined, therefore, referring to 'gay' people or 'straight' people is ridiculous. The only time this can be described is after someone's death.
When I see the term 'gay marriage' - I become instantly irritated. As not only does it make the assumption that we all have a genetic 'sexuality,' it makes a suggestion of a type of marriage only for those who have been attracted to members of the same sex.
The other attempt at reasoning that annoys me is when people compare 'sexual 'orientation'' to race. You must be completely deluded if you see a proven innate and hereditary characteristic as on the same footing as something made up.
In fact equality law should be completely changed and 'sexual orientation' must be corrected to 'types of sexual attraction experienced.'
I think the (extremely talented) musician Mika summed this up perfectly: "I’ve never ever labeled myself. But having said that; I’ve never limited my life, I’ve never limited who I sleep with. So, whatever. Call me whatever you want. Call me bisexual, if you need a term for me"
So I'll start the ball rolling - I'm a human being who so far has had attractions to men and women, people with brown hair, blonde hair, blue eyes, intelligent people etc...
(But no animals/corpses yet.)
This is fairly commonplace and seems at first a sensible question - the answers given were 'gay,' 'straight,' or 'bisexual.'
Obviously, these terms nowadays mean sexual/romantic attraction to members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex or members of both sexes respectively. (Traditionally of course though gay means carefree and happy.)
However there are several flaws here. The question makes the immediate assumption that it is undebatable that we all have an inbuilt sexual 'orientation' and hence fit into one of these categories.
This is wrong though. Taking the second part of the point, there is no reason one cannot be attracted to animals (zoosexual,) or children (paedosexual) or corpses (necrosexual) and etc.
And this is besides the point - no matter how many people claim to have been 'born gay,' or 'born straight,' there is no conclusive proof to suggest this at all.
Someone saying that they are a heterosexual,' would imply that the only possible attraction they could ever feel at any time would be to a human being of the opposite sex (whether an adult or child is irrelevant.)
However this is ridiculous - how can they possibly know this, other than a 'little feeling' telling them? How can someone for instance at the age of 15 turn around and tell his parents he is 'homosexual' or 'paedosexual?'
It's no more logical than someone saying he/she has a 'brunette orientation,' meaning they are only ever going to be attracted to someone with brunette hair. Or a 'Dwarfism orientation' which could mean they'd only be attracted to people unfortunate enough to have primordial dwarfism.
So for these reasons, the question "Are you straight, gay, or bisexual" is void. It makes the implication that these are the only valid forms of sexuall attraction to hold.
The truth is we are all indeed equal and without positive concrete evidence to suggest we do have an 'inbuilt sexuality,' then the default would be that we are born effectively with the potential to develop attraction to anyone and/or anything. Sigmund Freud was on to this when he claimed we were all born 'bisexual.'
Having said that though, the vast majority of people (due to procreative instinct) tend to form monogamous opposite-sex relationships. From studies we can estimate that around 1-1.5% of the UK population form monogamous same-sex relationships. And a few others form polyamorous relationships, or engage in sexual activity with animals, children etc...
We may have moral objections to unconsenting sex (i.e. with animals or with young children,) yet we cannot criticise attraction towards these activities.
May I say also that I am not for one minute suggesting we choose what we find attractive - I'm purely saying that we can be attracted to anyone and anything and a lot of relationships and sexual activity are purely circumstantial.
For the reasons outlined, therefore, referring to 'gay' people or 'straight' people is ridiculous. The only time this can be described is after someone's death.
When I see the term 'gay marriage' - I become instantly irritated. As not only does it make the assumption that we all have a genetic 'sexuality,' it makes a suggestion of a type of marriage only for those who have been attracted to members of the same sex.
The other attempt at reasoning that annoys me is when people compare 'sexual 'orientation'' to race. You must be completely deluded if you see a proven innate and hereditary characteristic as on the same footing as something made up.
In fact equality law should be completely changed and 'sexual orientation' must be corrected to 'types of sexual attraction experienced.'
I think the (extremely talented) musician Mika summed this up perfectly: "I’ve never ever labeled myself. But having said that; I’ve never limited my life, I’ve never limited who I sleep with. So, whatever. Call me whatever you want. Call me bisexual, if you need a term for me"
So I'll start the ball rolling - I'm a human being who so far has had attractions to men and women, people with brown hair, blonde hair, blue eyes, intelligent people etc...
(But no animals/corpses yet.)
Interesting points. There is a current movement towards regarding sexuality as something fluid rather than fixed.
I remember asking my friend when she had realised she was gay/bi-sexual (she was just about to marry her partner Louise. Previously to Louise she had only had relationships with men) She said, 'I didn't realise I was gay. I realised I'd fallen in love with Louise.'
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by lukas1051
I find women attractive, I can see myself in a relationship with a woman. I do not find men attractive, I have never seen myself in a relationship with that man. Therefore, as far as I and everyone else is concerned, at this point in time, I am heterosexual and I class myself as so. That is what these forms are asking.
You can look at sexuality in the way you have described if you like, but it's confusing and pointless, I would say that almost every mature person on the planet could class themselves as straight, gay or bisexual, so I disagree with what you are saying.
You can look at sexuality in the way you have described if you like, but it's confusing and pointless, I would say that almost every mature person on the planet could class themselves as straight, gay or bisexual, so I disagree with what you are saying.
But why therefore don't these 'equality' forms ask for your 'hair colour orientation' or your 'eye colour orientation?' Why is there this distinction.
And you haven't responded to my point - the idea that we all have an 'inbuilt' and 'innate' sexuality is still a hypothesis. Those in the science community who go around talking about 'gay' people or 'straight' people in the same vein as 'black' people are being intellectually dishonest.
Can you summarise your posts... there's too much to read 
heterosexuality and homosexuality do exist... what's wrong with it? It should be a non issue lol
heterosexuality and homosexuality do exist... what's wrong with it? It should be a non issue lol
Original post by AGrumpyMole
Yes, there is. Plus, nobody is actually going to read that.
Care to elaborate?
And secondly, I think you may be right - it's just that GCSEs have rather got me in to the format of essay-writing!
Original post by Opalfire
At the ages of puberty, girls and boys on the whole know who they are attracted to.
the thread regards there is no homosexuality or hereosexulity, without them therefore cannot be a bisexuality either which leaves us where?
you talk about attraction, that doesn't define ones sexuality. it plays a small part. gay men can find women attractive and vice versa - doesnt mean he wants to go off and make babies with her.
you overlook alot other mechanisms, bio & genetics, politics, socialisation.........point of this thread is what?
the thread regards there is no homosexuality or hereosexulity, without them therefore cannot be a bisexuality either which leaves us where?
you talk about attraction, that doesn't define ones sexuality. it plays a small part. gay men can find women attractive and vice versa - doesnt mean he wants to go off and make babies with her.
you overlook alot other mechanisms, bio & genetics, politics, socialisation.........point of this thread is what?
No, I'm not saying there is no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality. What I'm saying though is that the view that people are 'born' with one is very much a theory and therefore cannot be compared with proven innate/hereditary characteristics, like someone's race.
Before anyone gets the wrong message - I'm saying that all forms of sexual attraction are natural and normal. We can't just say that 'bi,' 'homo' and 'hetero' are okay and the others are unnatural.
Original post by chickenonsteroids
Can you summarise your posts... there's too much to read
heterosexuality and homosexuality do exist... what's wrong with it? It should be a non issue lol
heterosexuality and homosexuality do exist... what's wrong with it? It should be a non issue lol
Sorry chicken, I'm in GCSE essay-mode atm!
Original post by ollyb96
Care to elaborate?
And secondly, I think you may be right - it's just that GCSEs have rather got me in to the format of essay-writing!
And secondly, I think you may be right - it's just that GCSEs have rather got me in to the format of essay-writing!
Lol
and it's too late to elaborate, sorry Original post by ollyb96
Sorry chicken, I'm in GCSE essay-mode atm!
Ok I'll read it in the future... maybe.
People like you really don't help the LGBT movement. When you're criticising even those who support gay rights, you really turn people off the movement. Please be quiet.
What a bunch of incoherent waffle. I'm not even totally sure what your point was supposed to be, but it seems that you're arguing that sexual orientation is a psychosocial construct that does not reflect reality.
That may be the case, it's a theory which is frequently advanced about gender so it would naturally also apply to sexual orientation. However, we have gender and sexual orientation even if they are constructs - they're also central to our psychology, society and culture.
You're also neglecting that there is only a loose correlation between people identifying as gay and people who have sex with others of the same gender.
Most labels that we apply to people are always the grossest simplifications. Homosexual, christian, youth, male, they're only the beginning of considering these different aspects of people, not the be all and end all. However, it is useful to consider these categories because if 6% of the population identify as gay or bisexual, then 6% of subpopulations should also be unless there is some reason to the contrary - that's the whole point of asking.
Meanwhile, by the early teens most people have a more than sufficient degree of personal development to being self-identifying as all sorts of things. These needn't be immutable, but that doesn't make them invalid.
You have greatly miserepresented what they were sued for, and why they lost. The couple who sued them were refused a double room, the hoteliers claimed that this was not discriminatory but in accordance of only allowing married couples to share rooms. The couple pointed out that they were in a civil partnership, and that the law states explicitly that it is illegal to distinguish between marriages and civil partnerships in the provision of goods and services.
That may be the case, it's a theory which is frequently advanced about gender so it would naturally also apply to sexual orientation. However, we have gender and sexual orientation even if they are constructs - they're also central to our psychology, society and culture.
You're also neglecting that there is only a loose correlation between people identifying as gay and people who have sex with others of the same gender.
Most labels that we apply to people are always the grossest simplifications. Homosexual, christian, youth, male, they're only the beginning of considering these different aspects of people, not the be all and end all. However, it is useful to consider these categories because if 6% of the population identify as gay or bisexual, then 6% of subpopulations should also be unless there is some reason to the contrary - that's the whole point of asking.
Meanwhile, by the early teens most people have a more than sufficient degree of personal development to being self-identifying as all sorts of things. These needn't be immutable, but that doesn't make them invalid.
Original post by ollyb96
Let's take the case of the elderly Christian B&B owners who were prosecuted and fined (wrongly in my opinion) for their objection to allowing two men to share a bed.
You have greatly miserepresented what they were sued for, and why they lost. The couple who sued them were refused a double room, the hoteliers claimed that this was not discriminatory but in accordance of only allowing married couples to share rooms. The couple pointed out that they were in a civil partnership, and that the law states explicitly that it is illegal to distinguish between marriages and civil partnerships in the provision of goods and services.
Don't ever go full retard. It's very easy to explain heterosexuality (biological purpose is?), homosexuality less so but that's not very important.
Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, they are either heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. Same with necrophilia. Same with Zoophilia. They either like male, female or both (and none obviously). Hence, fall under sexual orientation.
Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation, they are either heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. Same with necrophilia. Same with Zoophilia. They either like male, female or both (and none obviously). Hence, fall under sexual orientation.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
