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

[The Duke]

It is sort of a choice, and sort of not.  I don't buy the genetic argument, or the argument that all gays were raped into it.  I think a lot of righties want to bash homosexuals, and so they come up with ignorant theories about gays.  Lefties want to accept everything, so they come up with equally ignorant theories that act like it a simple genetic equation.

Genetics and personal choice may both play a role, but so does your culture, your personal upbringing and life experiences, etc.  Its such a complex equation that I don't think anyone can say they really know what the mix is, and anyone who pretends to truly know probably just has their own little agenda.

I don't think its something that needs curing, nor does it need to be wildly celebrated.  It is what it is, and I don't have a problem with it.

[TheWildCard]

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..

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I can't imagine anyone honestly thinking that anyone chooses to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly chose whether to act on it or not.

Pedophiles probably don't choose to be attracted to children, but if they act on it nobody has any problem throwing them in jail.

Even heterosexual married people are constantly involuntarily  attracted to people who are not their spouse.  Whether they act on those attractions is up to them, but it is certainly not without moral judgment or consequences.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with gay relationships, and I certainly do think there is something wrong with adultery and pedophilia.  But I can't necessarily blame people for drawing the line differently.  If you have a deeply held religious belief that sex is intended solely for the purpose of pro-creation, you have a good reason to oppose gay relationships.   And one that I can't really argue against without denying your core convictions.

I have a lot of gay friends, and have no problem with their sexuality.  But I think it is unfair to anti-gay people to just tell them it's genetic and they should just accept it.

[Brambila]

Psychologists today are split into two different groups: Those accepting that homosexuality is a normal, genetic difference, and is simply another form of human sexuality; and those who believe that homosexuality is caused by abnormal mental growth in the childhood due to traumatic or influencial mental events. The former group, of course, is predominant in the psychology world. However, the latter group has an argument worth fighting for.

Everybody has genetic predispositions, and in this belief, homosexuals most likely begin having sexual disfunction with a genetic predisposition; they have a higher chance of growing up to be homosexual (such as certain people have higher chances of having bipolarism or pedophilic tendancies). In effect, should the child have abnormal influences or traumatic events in his childhood, he could develop a homosexual attraction. The most common cases for males are when they are rejected by their male peers, and so they make friends with girls. It is common that within this, they not only connect with girls better, but also do not participate in sports or any other male activities.

It's simply an argument, but I think its a very good one.

[Richard]

I just know that by far the most of the world's really great minds were either bisexual or gay.  Since I'm in both groups (bi and one of the world's greatest minds), it makes sense, doesn't it?

[Jake]

How modest

[Brambila]

This *should* end the argument about choice: Why would anyone *choose* to be gay?

However, I know those people who believe it is a choice will come up with some zany answer to refute this.  In fact, the way I see it is, if you think it possible, than you must be at least bisexual, because only a non-straight person would think this. Straight people are not attracted to other members of the sex, and would never try it, because it would be to repulsive. Thusly, they must understand that if other people are willing to try it, - then it can't be a choice issue, now can it?

Bullsh**t.  The Greeks were then all bisexual.  It doesn't work that way.  You're taught to like it or not, and it is a decision.  And a fun one at that.

Greeks wern't bisexual- they were gay, specifically the Spartans. The Spartan army would take children away from their homes at a young age, and implant homosexuality into them through statutory rape, so that the boys wouldn't have families to want to go back to during war.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This *should* end the argument about choice: Why would anyone *choose* to be gay?

However, I know those people who believe it is a choice will come up with some zany answer to refute this.  In fact, the way I see it is, if you think it possible, than you must be at least bisexual, because only a non-straight person would think this. Straight people are not attracted to other members of the sex, and would never try it, because it would be to repulsive. Thusly, they must understand that if other people are willing to try it, - then it can't be a choice issue, now can it?

Bullsh**t.  The Greeks were then all bisexual.  It doesn't work that way.  You're taught to like it or not, and it is a decision.  And a fun one at that.

Greeks wern't bisexual- they were gay, specifically the Spartans. The Spartan army would take children away from their homes at a young age, and implant homosexuality into them through statutory rape, so that the boys wouldn't have families to want to go back to during war.

hey, you're back!

[Rob]

Greeks wern't bisexual- they were gay, specifically the Spartans. The Spartan army would take children away from their homes at a young age, and implant homosexuality into them through statutory rape, so that the boys wouldn't have families to want to go back to during war.

That is disturbing if it's true.

[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.

[TheresNoMoney]

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.

Exactly.

[David S]

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"? 

No, and I don't see how there could be such an implication. In many ways it's like being left-handed. It's not a disability, but life is tougher as a leftie because we live in a society dominated by right-handed people. And believe it or not, there are still parents out there who want to "cure" their kids' left-handedness.

Basically where one would get the disability argument is the fact that they cannot naturally breed. Which is different from being left handed and having red hair.

Please also note I'm just arguing for arguings sake I do not believe one or the other.

Come on. Take a stand so we can attack it.

From my perspective I would say its abnormal since the purpose of sex is procreation and you cannot achieve that through homosexual sex. But I view it as being "not my business". If they don't bother me I don't bother them.

[opebo]

Greeks wern't bisexual- they were gay, specifically the Spartans. The Spartan army would take children away from their homes at a young age, and implant homosexuality into them through statutory rape, so that the boys wouldn't have families to want to go back to during war.

It can't be 'statutory' rape if there is no statute against it.. which there was not in those enlightened days. 

[A18]

Opedophile, we're very aware of your views. You can stop posting them now.

[opebo]

Opedophile, we're very aware of your views. You can stop posting them now.

The first part of my post was a correction of Brambilla's misuse of the term 'statutory rape'.  Only the latter portion was my view.

[Gabu]

Greeks wern't bisexual- they were gay, specifically the Spartans. The Spartan army would take children away from their homes at a young age, and implant homosexuality into them through statutory rape, so that the boys wouldn't have families to want to go back to during war.

It can't be 'statutory' rape if there is no statute against it.. which there was not in those enlightened days. 

Wow, opebo is like limbo, as in "How low can you go?"

[Brambila]

Opebo, it was considered bizarre by most of the world. If a few hundred people from Nebraska decided to brainwash and sleep with little children, would that make it right because it was their statute?

[TheWildCard]

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.

Hey, I don't care how this turns out. I just want to see interesting debate on something.

Plus my Philosophy teacher is the one that brought this type of debate up. Got people fired up there so thought it'd be interesting to have here.

[??????????]

Opebo, it was considered bizarre by most of the world. If a few hundred people from Nebraska decided to brainwash and sleep with little children, would that make it right because it was their statute?

To him anything else would be oppression by the religious.

[opebo]

Opebo, it was considered bizarre by most of the world. If a few hundred people from Nebraska decided to brainwash and sleep with little children, would that make it right because it was their statute?

No, nor does the current statute make it 'wrong'.  There is no objective morality, only subjective preferences.

[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.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're contradicting yourself. You're agreeing with me that those people from Nebraska who sleep with children are doing something wrong, and yet you say that stuff like that is subjective. Make up your mind!

I'll use another situation: If in Bhutan it was socially acceptable to brutally rape and murder woman at the age of 30, would that make it right?

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're contradicting yourself. You're agreeing with me that those people from Nebraska who sleep with children are doing something wrong, and yet you say that stuff like that is subjective. Make up your mind!

No, I don't agree, nor did I say, that it was 'wrong'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.  Nor wrong.  As I said objective right or wrong does not exist, only subjective preference.

[Brambila]

Around. I got a little overwealmed this year with school.

Opebo, define subjective preference in your words.

[Jake]

So in your mind opebo, it wouldn't be wrong at all to brutally rape a five year old child.