So here's a thought for the day:
A wonderful teacher of the old school once told me that more often than not a response would yield more information than the initiating comment and that it would, more often than not, speak of things that had never been mentioned. What he meant was, "You've just mentioned something that only the culprit would know, ergo you must be he - detention!"
I was often busted because I gave away far too much information - the key is to offer enough to dialogue and nothing that might incriminate.
Regarding my ONS post yesterday, I received the following comments:
"Just because someone is attracted to both sexes does not mean that they are more promiscuous."
I don't think I even mentioned the word 'promiscuous' so any concept of a bisexual person being so is something that has been added to the discussion I guess. Is this smoke that indicates a fire I hadn't considered? My observation concerning bisexuality is that being either heterosexual or homosexual is often portrayed as something which is 'hard coded' into our being and that people don't have a choice, they are born homosexual or heterosexual. Personally I don't agree with this and pray that they never find a 'gay gene' because if they did, some worthy group would seek to find a 'cure'for this aberration - shades of Mengele and of acts against people that would be too awful to contemplate.
Bisexuality has to be a choice. You can take a 'no choice - hetero / homo' approach but 'bi' has to be a choice, and a moral choice to boot! So, if you lump 'no choice' and 'choice' in the same bag you have devalued and defeated the 'no choice' argument because the whole population (1.5% of the UK's population) is now regarded as choice, nurture not nature, groomed or whatever position that removing 'no choice' allows.
My commentator and I totally agree that being heterosexual doesn't preclude sexual sin, I know a fair number of heterosexual sinners, just nice to see homosexual sexual sin included in this equation. Seem that thus far we are in agreement (and I've learnt stuff too!).
Just for the record - I've never done bell-ringing (discriminate or otherwise) but it's a good hobby I hear.
Another comment (from the same source) leaves me a little bemused:
"A straight man has only straight women available.
A bisexual man has straight women and gay men as his 'options'. This adds, by the numbers you quote, an extra 0.5% of the population. Why should they be more promiscuous?
There is no reason a bisexual person cannot have a stable monogamous relationship. Heterosexuals are able to do so even if there are millions of other heterosexuals to tempt them?"
I haven't said they were more promiscuous (covered that above). As I see it, choosing to be bisexual is a choice. Some argue that they have no choice in being heterosexual or homosexual because it's the way they are wired, bisexual people are making an obvious choice aren't they? (see above)
I would have thought that being bisexual means that a stable, monogamous, relationship is a little difficult because if the relationship was stable and monogamous then the person in question would then be heterosexual or homosexual, wouldn't they? I don't see how one could be bisexual and in a stable monogamous relationship, well not unless the stable monogamous relationship is with two people (one of each sex) and then of course it wouldn't be monogamous!
I guess we could speak of a person having a stable heterosexual relationship for a time and then have them leave that and enter into a new 'stable' relationship of the homosexual kind. A bit later they could have a new stable (stretching 'stable' here aren't we?) and enter into a new heterosexual relationship and and so on . . . (you get the picture) but then of course this would be being promiscuous and apparently bisexuals are not promiscuous!
Think this is where we came in - Happy Saturday :)
11 comments:
Me again.
Though you never mentioned the word 'promiscuous', I took your "anyone that comes along" comment to mean much the main thing. Perhaps I was over-interpreting though, due to seeing too many lazy stereotypes invoked by others in the past (a sign that I should stop reading the DM?)
Apologies for the confusion. Now onto the meat of this post:
"I would have thought that being bisexual means that a stable, monogamous, relationship is a little difficult because if the relationship was stable and monogamous then the person in question would then be heterosexual or homosexual, wouldn't they? I don't see how one could be bisexual and in a stable monogamous relationship"
I think perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Perhaps this is a more of a problem of definitions.
Being bisexual does not entail relationships with both sexes, instead it is more of a case of either sex.
Take speed dating as an illustrative metaphor - in a room of, say 20 men and 20 women a bisexual man may be attracted to 5 men and 5 women. Or it could be 8 women and 2 men. (Indeed it could well be that there he liked 2 of the women and none of the men) This doesn't mean that he wants a relationship with all 10 of them at once, just that he is attracted to some men and some women.
The heterosexual equivalent is that a man may like, say, 5 out of 20 women (and obviously 0 of the men!). Again, he doesn't want a harem of several wives, but can b attracted to several women.
In short, although a person may be attracted to several people over the course of their life, that still does not stop them being able to find their one true love, settle down, have kids etc etc. And the only difference is that in heterosexuals, everyone they are attracted to is of the opposite sex; in homosexuals, the same sex; and for bisexuals it could be a mix of both. And of these 3 groups could chose to have a settled, stable, monogamous relationship.
part 2
* On a related note:
"I guess we could speak of a person having a stable heterosexual relationship for a time and then have them leave that and enter into a new 'stable' relationship of the homosexual kind. A bit later they could have a new stable (stretching 'stable' here aren't we?) and enter into a new heterosexual relationship and and so on . . ."
This illustrates my last point I think. A heterosexual person is perfectly capable of 'serial monogamy' in exactly the way you describe above. And yes, someone bi could well have a series of relationships as you describe, however being bisexual does not demand that they do so.
A bisexual man may have a few girlfriends, and a few boyfriends in their teens/20s and then find The One (who may b male or may be female) and settle down.
A 'usual' heterosexual man's life would follow an almost identical pattern a few girlfriends when young, find The One (who is female) and settle down.
The point I am trying to make is these are THE SAME thing.
*
And I think this is where the issue of 'choice' comes in.
I believe a person has no choice at all over their sexual orientation. People often invoke the "gay gene" but I happen to think it's a little more complicated than that, but nevertheless it is not a choice.
Some people have black hair, some brown, some blonde. Some people are tall, some people are short, and there are a whole range of people in between. Some people are strong and sporty, some people and weedy and geeky, some people are performers and have musical, or acting talents. All these things, to greeter or lesser degrees are hard-wired into people. You can't chose your sexuality in the same way you can't chose what colour your hair grows. And if you accept that people can be hard-wired as gay or straight, is it a bigger step to say there may be a 3rd option? If we can have a whole range of hair colours, we can surely accommodate 3 sexual preferences.
No one makes the choice to like anything. Some people like dark chocolate, some people hate it. No one is making a logical, planned choice and weighing up the pros and cons they just know whether they like it.
This is the same for all orientations. I don't think every heterosexual person has been sitting in History class at school, looking at the other classmates and thought "I think I should be straight". A man doesn't chose to feel attracted to his wife, he just is.
However there ARE choices that one can make in life. The aforementioned man will have chosen to marry his wife, and have a lifelong relationship. Similarly a gay man does not chose to be attracted to other men (in general) but he can chose to enter a stable monogamous relationship with one of those men.
I must thank you, Vic. I hadn't necessarily thought deeply on this before or explored by opinions on this topic. I'd just picked up stuff from newspapers, online, and so on and never settled down to sort out an opinion. So thank you for providing this platform for debate and discussion. I think we are both getting something from this. :) However I may not be able to read and reply to any future posts you may make due to a change in my schedule, so please don't think me rude if I'm not attaching myself to the bottom of future posts.
Part 2
* On a related note:
"I guess we could speak of a person having a stable heterosexual relationship for a time and then have them leave that and enter into a new 'stable' relationship of the homosexual kind. A bit later they could have a new stable (stretching 'stable' here aren't we?) and enter into a new heterosexual relationship and and so on . . ."
This illustrates my last point I think. A heterosexual person is perfectly capable of 'serial monogamy' in exactly the way you describe above. And yes, someone bi could well have a series of relationships as you describe, however being bisexual does not demand that they do so.
A bisexual man may have a few girlfriends, and a few boyfriends in their teens/20s and then find The One (who may b male or may be female) and settle down.
A 'usual' heterosexual man's life would follow an almost identical pattern a few girlfriends when young, find The One (who is female) and settle down.
The point I am trying to make is these are THE SAME thing.
Part 3
*
And I think this is where the issue of 'choice' comes in.
I believe a person has no choice at all over their sexual orientation. People often invoke the "gay gene" but I happen to think it's a little more complicated than that, but nevertheless it is not a choice.
Some people have black hair, some brown, some blonde. Some people are tall, some people are short, and there are a whole range of people in between. Some people are strong and sporty, some people and weedy and geeky, some people are performers and have musical, or acting talents. All these things, to greeter or lesser degrees are hard-wired into people. You can't chose your sexuality in the same way you can't chose what colour your hair grows. And if you accept that people can be hard-wired as gay or straight, is it a bigger step to say there may be a 3rd option? If we can have a whole range of hair colours, we can surely accommodate 3 sexual preferences.
No one makes the choice to like anything. Some people like dark chocolate, some people hate it. No one is making a logical, planned choice and weighing up the pros and cons they just know whether they like it.
This is the same for all orientations. I don't think every heterosexual person has been sitting in History class at school, looking at the other classmates and thought "I think I should be straight". A man doesn't chose to feel attracted to his wife, he just is.
However there ARE choices that one can make in life. The aforementioned man will have chosen to marry his wife, and have a lifelong relationship. Similarly a gay man does not chose to be attracted to other men (in general) but he can chose to enter a stable monogamous relationship with one of those men.
I must thank you, Vic. I hadn't necessarily thought deeply on this before or explored by opinions on this topic. I'd just picked up stuff from newspapers, online, and so on and never settled down to sort out an opinion. So thank you for providing this platform for debate and discussion. I think we are both getting something from this. :) However I may not be able to read and reply to any future posts you may make due to a change in my schedule, so please don't think me rude if I'm not attaching myself to the bottom of future posts.
Me again. Part 1 seems to have disappeared, sorry. Here it is:
Though you never mentioned the word 'promiscuous', I took your "anyone that comes along" comment to mean much the main thing. Perhaps I was over-interpreting though, due to seeing too many lazy stereotypes invoked by others in the past (a sign that I should stop reading the DM?)
Apologies for the confusion. Now onto the meat of this post:
"I would have thought that being bisexual means that a stable, monogamous, relationship is a little difficult because if the relationship was stable and monogamous then the person in question would then be heterosexual or homosexual, wouldn't they? I don't see how one could be bisexual and in a stable monogamous relationship"
I think perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Perhaps this is a more of a problem of definitions.
Being bisexual does not entail relationships with both sexes, instead it is more of a case of either sex.
Take speed dating as an illustrative metaphor - in a room of, say 20 men and 20 women a bisexual man may be attracted to 5 men and 5 women. Or it could be 8 women and 2 men. (Indeed it could well be that there he liked 2 of the women and none of the men) This doesn't mean that he wants a relationship with all 10 of them at once, just that he is attracted to some men and some women.
The heterosexual equivalent is that a man may like, say, 5 out of 20 women (and obviously 0 of the men!). Again, he doesn't want a harem of several wives, but can b attracted to several women.
In short, although a person may be attracted to several people over the course of their life, that still does not stop them being able to find their one true love, settle down, have kids etc etc. And the only difference is that in heterosexuals, everyone they are attracted to is of the opposite sex; in homosexuals, the same sex; and for bisexuals it could be a mix of both. And of these 3 groups could chose to have a settled, stable, monogamous relationship.
Hmm, it doesn't seem to like the length of my post(s)...
PART 1a
Though you never mentioned the word 'promiscuous', I took your "anyone that comes along" comment to mean much the main thing. Perhaps I was over-interpreting though, due to seeing too many lazy stereotypes invoked by others in the past (a sign that I should stop reading the DM?)
Apologies for the confusion. Now onto the meat of this post:
"I would have thought that being bisexual means that a stable, monogamous, relationship is a little difficult because if the relationship was stable and monogamous then the person in question would then be heterosexual or homosexual, wouldn't they? I don't see how one could be bisexual and in a stable monogamous relationship"
I think perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Perhaps this is a more of a problem of definitions.
Being bisexual does not entail relationships with both sexes, instead it is more of a case of either sex.
PART 1b
Take speed dating as an illustrative metaphor - in a room of, say 20 men and 20 women a bisexual man may be attracted to 5 men and 5 women. Or it could be 8 women and 2 men. (Indeed it could well be that there he liked 2 of the women and none of the men) This doesn't mean that he wants a relationship with all 10 of them at once, just that he is attracted to some men and some women.
The heterosexual equivalent is that a man may like, say, 5 out of 20 women (and obviously 0 of the men!). Again, he doesn't want a harem of several wives, but can b attracted to several women.
In short, although a person may be attracted to several people over the course of their life, that still does not stop them being able to find their one true love, settle down, have kids etc etc. And the only difference is that in heterosexuals, everyone they are attracted to is of the opposite sex; in homosexuals, the same sex; and for bisexuals it could be a mix of both. And of these 3 groups could chose to have a settled, stable, monogamous relationship.
PART 3
And I think this is where the issue of 'choice' comes in.
I believe a person has no choice at all over their sexual orientation. People often invoke the "gay gene" but I happen to think it's a little more complicated than that, but nevertheless it is not a choice.
Some people have black hair, some brown, some blonde. Some people are tall, some people are short, and there are a whole range of people in between. Some people are strong and sporty, some people and weedy and geeky, some people are performers and have musical, or acting talents. All these things, to greeter or lesser degrees are hard-wired into people. You can't chose your sexuality in the same way you can't chose what colour your hair grows. And if you accept that people can be hard-wired as gay or straight, is it a bigger step to say there may be a 3rd option? If we can have a whole range of hair colours, we can surely accommodate 3 sexual preferences.
No one makes the choice to like anything. Some people like dark chocolate, some people hate it. No one is making a logical, planned choice and weighing up the pros and cons they just know whether they like it.
PART 4
This is the same for all orientations. I don't think every heterosexual person has been sitting in History class at school, looking at the other classmates and thought "I think I should be straight". A man doesn't chose to feel attracted to his wife, he just is.
However there ARE choices that one can make in life. The aforementioned man will have chosen to marry his wife, and have a lifelong relationship. Similarly a gay man does not chose to be attracted to other men (in general) but he can chose to enter a stable monogamous relationship with one of those men.
I must thank you, Vic. I hadn't necessarily thought deeply on this before or explored by opinions on this topic. I'd just picked up stuff from newspapers, online, and so on and never settled down to sort out an opinion. So thank you for providing this platform for debate and discussion. I think we are both getting something from this. :) However I may not be able to read and reply to any future posts you may make due to a change in my schedule, so please don't think me rude if I'm not attaching myself to the bottom of future posts.
Biblically speaking, we are ALL fallen sons and daughters in Adam, so the whole "choice" excuse seems kind of irrelevant to the theological issue, since we are all born with a sin nature and an inability to please God. I think as Christians we need to focus on the Gospel, which has the power to save even the most hardened rebel.
I'm with Simon on this.
Even if a "gay gene" is ever found, that will be irrelevant too inasmuch we are all flawed as sinners regardless. If a "selfish gene" can be isolated, does that mean we can expect God to overlook our selfishness? Don't think so.
Post a Comment