A question for both sides of the spectrum on the "gay debate"

[angus]

So I have a question for both sides of this debate.

For those who believe it is a choice are you not in a way confessing that people have homosexual feelings and that it is 'normal" just as long as you do not act on it?

For those who believe that it is not a choice are you not saying that homosexuals are abnormal and have some kind of "mental disability", thus making it some what legiable to try to "cure"? 

Please note I'm not saying that I believe either of these I'm just trying to spark debate by being highly critical of both sides.

I'm really quite certain I didn't choose to be straight, or to be attracted in many instances to nonwhite chicks, or even to have a general preference for smart chicks.  So, by extension, I assume you are attacted to men, brunettes, blondes, skinny chicks, fat chicks, whatever, by some compulsion buried deep either in your genetic makeup, or deep in your childhood experiences.  Again, it's just an assumption, but I really don't think dykes and queers are so by choice.  Now, beyond that, you seem to suggest that this postulate leads to labelling as a "mental disability" the preferences.  I disagree.  I have thoroughly enjoyed blondes as well.  I simply have a preference for darker-complexioned women.  So, you cannot say I have some "disability" in the form of being disabled to be attracted to blue-eyed, yellow-haired, pink-skinned chicks who could pass for my sister.  Then, by extension, I would argue that the homosexual desire is not a disability either.  I have posted before that I know of gay men who are divorced (mostly because they were under tremendous familial pressure to be "normal" and married out of Fraternal Love for a woman they thought they could stand to be with) and who were "able" to pleasure their heterosexual wives till they decided to come out of the closet.  So I say NO it is not tantamount to a "disability"  We don't have to call it a "preference" if that is an offensive term (and I can see how it might be) but certainly we should not introduce additional inaccuracy by calling it a "disability"

[angus]

I think we can supplant the phrase "preference" with the more neutral phrase "orientation" if the former offends.  Still, it's bullsh**t to say that it's a "disabilty" in the same sense that having eyeglasses, hearing aid, ADD, schizophrenia, or a wheelchair represents a disability.  Not that people with disabilities can't lead productive lives.  My wife is blind as a bat without her glasses, so she can't scuba dive, for example, but she can drive a car and get a PhD in Chemistry and earn a paycheck and cook my meals and sweep the floors.  On the other hand, I've had great times scuba diving with totally flaming flamboyant You-Go-Girl hellaQueers and they seem to have no problem discriminating between Sharks and Dolphins.  Now, a queer with glasses is another story.  Ouch.  That's gotta suck.

[angus]

I'll disclose that I'm okay with them keeping you out of the Army on account of poor eyesight, by the way. 

[angus]

So I have a question for both sides of this debate.

For those who believe it is a choice are you not in a way confessing that people have homosexual feelings and that it is 'normal" just as long as you do not act on it?

For those who believe that it is not a choice are you not saying that homosexuals are abnormal and have some kind of "mental disability", thus making it some what legiable to try to "cure"? 

Please note I'm not saying that I believe either of these I'm just trying to spark debate by being highly critical of both sides.

I'm really quite certain I didn't choose to be straight, or to be attracted in many instances to nonwhite chicks, or even to have a general preference for smart chicks.  So, by extension, I assume you are attacted to men, brunettes, blondes, skinny chicks, fat chicks, whatever, by some compulsion buried deep either in your genetic makeup, or deep in your childhood experiences.  Again, it's just an assumption, but I really don't think dykes and queers are so by choice.  Now, beyond that, you seem to suggest that this postulate leads to labelling as a "mental disability" the preferences.  I disagree.  I have thoroughly enjoyed blondes as well.  I simply have a preference for darker-complexioned women.  So, you cannot say I have some "disability" in the form of being disabled to be attracted to blue-eyed, yellow-haired, pink-skinned chicks who could pass for my sister.  Then, by extension, I would argue that the homosexual desire is not a disability either.  I have posted before that I know of gay men who are divorced (mostly because they were under tremendous familial pressure to be "normal" and married out of Fraternal Love for a woman they thought they could stand to be with) and who were "able" to pleasure their heterosexual wives till they decided to come out of the closet.  So I say NO it is not tantamount to a "disability"  We don't have to call it a "preference" if that is an offensive term (and I can see how it might be) but certainly we should not introduce additional inaccuracy by calling it a "disability"

Umm just so you know I do not believe either of these choices is correct, I am mainly trying to demonstrate a flaws in the arguments of both sides.

And just for your knowledge I am only attracted to women the first question was aimed at hitting a nerve with those whom make the case that its a choice.

I personaly was looking for the type of argument John Ford put forth that incorporates a number of factors rather than just these two stances..

well, unlike John, I don't claim to know.  and I'm not sure I agree entirely with his post, but I do agree with the last paragraph.  I'd also add that if you're comfortable with your own masculinity, then why do you even care who's gay and why they're gay. 

Gay people do this too, you know, they'll sit around and argue over who's really gay but hiding it.  "Oh, that steve, he thinks he's fooling people."  Seems that we all like to poke our noses into each other's business, and this phenomenon isn't limited to straights.

[angus]

Plus my Philosophy teacher is the one that brought this type of debate up.

that's pretty interesting.  I think in sociology my teacher used to try to do current issues to stir us up.  this was back in the late 80s.  The War on Drugs was a big nerve-button issue back then, as you might imagine.