I don't think they were disputing that mate, they were just trying to point out that 'normal' is very much a societal construct, and as such, is not a distinct tangible phenomenon that you can actually point out.

For some values of normal, yes.

Yes.

As I said, the symptoms are similar (or identical) but the causes are quite different although, both based on evolutionary factors.

As treating these two conditions (racism and homophobia) is an important priority for creating a just society it's as well to understand the genesis of each problem.

fair enough
I have a hatred of the word 'normal' anyway
everyone's different
what's good for you may not be good for me

I dunno whether the genesis would help so if you wanna explain more please?

education would be more useful

ok, sorry fo using the word normal!!

Accepted ok??

yeah
I understood how it was used earlier but I think the word is used badly by many

I know...i dont use it too much myself, as you say everyone is individual really

Just trying to get my point across and im tired so vocab limited tonight

Having re-read it and as i always like to see the best in people,im hoping she said this in a different context or its tosh seen as it came from a redtop

Having said that if she did say it in that context she deserves all the backlash she gets from it tbh

Sorry, I don't think it is down to choice. It may have something to do with nurture or biology, I really haven't a clue, but generally by the time you can become sexually active, most people are drawn to a particular gender, whether it be their own or the opposite sex.

I'm a pretty open-minded straight female. I love my female friends and enjoy spending time with some of them, probably more than I do my husband. I also find some women attractive, but I have never wanted to sleep with any woman. That is what makes me straight. I don't feel like its a choice for me, because as far as I'm concerned my OH is from Mars! and so are most other men I meet! Unfortunately (lol?!?!) I find him and other men sexually attractive!!

haha so true

I find that very sad.

I've never seen the point of having a partner if she's not going to be my best friend.

Of course, whether that feeling is symmetrical is another matter.

Exactly! Anyone can appreciate beauty, but does that mean you find yourself wanting a sexual relationship with someone just because you believe they're attractive? Any straight man can appreciate George Clooney is a hunk (it doesn't matter who you are, it is very obvious he is good-looking) but that doesn't mean they will want to get in his pants. The same goes for straight women. I have plenty of female friends who talk about women they see in magazines or see girls walking down the street and say "Oh, she's stunning!" However, they're very happily involved with their boyfriends. So of course the same applies for gay guys and lesbians. We may be able to notice beauty of the opposite sex when it slaps us in the face, but biology tells us to get sexually involved with the same sex. It's not a choice.

But surely some guys would prefer a night out with the lads or chilling with your best guy mate every once in while, rather than being with your partner? Yes, you love your partner dearly, but sometimes it's nice to be with your friends without your other half by your side.

I don't think it's all about sex like some people here seem to be implying! Having a partner is a different type of relationship and the difference is not merely separated by sex ( dunno, maybe for some of you it is ). Being attracted to someone is also about wanting that certain relationship with someone else.
And there's is also a big difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to someone (again I'm not talking about sex). E.g. I'm a straight woman, I think Orlando Bloom is attractive but I don't fancy him a single bit.
Secondly, as controversial as some may find this, I personally believe homosexuality is a 'choice' and by that I do not mean a conscious one. In other words it cannot be compared to race or gender as race or gender is not a behaviour/action/lifestyle. That's not to say it isn't natural but as human being we have the choice to act in accordance with our instincts/feeling or not to. Someone may naturally be aggressive or intovert but in certain situations can act contrary to these natural personalities. They therefore have a choice whether to be aggressive or introvert. I know people that have supposedly been gay and turned straight again or vice versa. If it wasn't a choice then this would not be possible.
And as someone pointed out earlier, some people's views reek of double standards. Religion may not be your thing but it is real for other people so saying you think something is 'outdated' etc etc is putting a value judgement and stating it as fact. With regard to religion homosexuality is 'wrong' in that God intended for man and woman to be together and gave them reproductive abilities accordingly. Read this doesn not mean gay people are inferior, should be persecuted, treated differently etc etc. That is the road misguided people have chosen to take. I don't see why being gay should be any different to say a Christian than someone being Muslim as both are 'wrong' in this context i.e. it doesn't excuse people from treating others as individuals with respect and equality.

Who you are attracted to is not a choice on any level, acting upon that choice is, but that is the same for any one regardless of sexuality!!!

People do not 'change', although I will suggest that sexuality is more fluid then most people suggest, a lot of the time, these people who are supposedly turning heterosexual, are actually just denying who they are based on social issues, and those who are supposedly turning homosexual are actually just accepting themselves for who they are.

I think you completely underestimate the effect that social values and pressures have one someone who is struggling with their sexuality, and how this can influence their actions.

Sexuality is inherent, I'm not sure how you can deny that, attraction is not something you can change.

Sexuality is not a lifestyle, any more then gender is, expectations of gender can effect the way we behave as females, and males, just like sexuality can effect how we behave, that does not make it a behaviour in itself. You can say the same for race too, as cultural expectations can make certain behaviours be exhibited.

How you came to that conclusion is lost on me actually...

What all this has to do with the thread, I'll never know.

' lot of the time, these people who are supposedly turning heterosexual, are actually just denying who they are based on social issues, and those who are supposedly turning homosexual are actually just accepting themselves for who they are.'

And you know this how? This is just something you refuse to accept. I think I'll take the people's word for it as opposed to someone who doesn't know them...

I still maintain it is choice. As I said there isn't a difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to them. Even within the preferred sex there is evidence of being 'choice'. It's this very reason that the guy that you totally wanted to get with all of a sudden isn't so appealing when you find out it's your best mate's new beau. It is a choice that has been made albeit unconscious. If you can decide not to like someone you were attracted to moments before then yes there is a choice. It's the same reason people choose not be attracted to relatives - and yes people it does happen . As of yet there is no conclusive proof to say that people are 'born' with sexual orientation' so to say outright 'it isn't a choice' is again stating opinion as fact.

I think following the thread it's easy to see how this topic has opened out into related debates.

Racial and gender behaviour is determined by environment and are not innate which is why men in india will have different ideas of 'masculinity' to say British men and why white people in Poland are different from white people in Spain. The comparison is not the same by a long shot.

I prefer to follow current research, rather then some cobbled together argument, based on little of nothing apart from anecdotal evidence.

Research suggests that sexuality is caused by a multitude of factors, including but not limited to in-utero environment, genetic factors and environmental factors.

There is absolutely no evidence that suggests there is any choice anywhere, so what are you basing this on?

I dunno about you, but finding out someone was my best friend's beau, would not stop me being attracted to them, I wouldn't act on that attraction, but if I was attracted to them in the first place, that wouldn't change...

'multitude of factors, including but not limited to in-utero environment, genetic factors and environmental factors. '
'There is absolutely no evidence that suggests there is any choice anywhere'

You've pretty much just agreed with what I said and then disagreed in the next sentence. Human nature determined by environment is changeable and therefore subject to choice and selection.

'I prefer to follow current research, rather then some cobbled together argument'

Rather than making assertions regarding people's intentions and feelings (whom you do not know) which are of course not cobbled? Yes, the evidence is anecdoctal but that is irrelevant. I'm trying to prove the choice is made all the time, only that the choice can be made. If only two men had ever learned to fly the case would still be that man could potentially fly.
I'm also highly doubtful of how a vague summary of a few lines constitutes 'research'.

NB: I could still find this friend's bf attractive and not 'want them' which is what I mean by attracted to

I think you are getting confused by the word environment by the way, in-utero conditions, such as a hormonal balance constitute an environment, last time I checked, no-one was choosing the level of hormones in the womb..

'environmental factors'

Is the one I was referring to.

it has been proven actually that it's not choice
you get your sexual orientation when you are born
religion is evil when it is used to support and promote homophobia

when religion says it's a sin and other evil bigoted nonsense then people are going to treat others differently and you affect many lesbians., gays and bisexuals
christianity is what keeps homophobia going along with other religions

What are the environmental factors then?

You are for some reason assuming this is social, when it is not necessarily the case.

Environment here just refers to things that initiate genetic activation, as sexuality is something that although, according to the science, is in all likelihood is present at birth, it is still developmental in some respect.

I'm not trying to argue with you here, but I think you are misunderstanding the science, and jumping to conclusions based on one word.