Consider this… stating or pretending that homosexuality is exclusively biological serves the goal of denying rights to those who choose it. And it serves the goal of treating homosexuality like an unwanted disease that could someday be “cured” (or cured for real, without the scare quotes).
There’s no gene in your body that gives you the right to vote or a trial by jury, or not be discriminated against. Biology is the obsession of bigotry, it really has nothing to do with civil rights.
That’s not genetic. It’s congenital, but it’s not genetic.
It also, of course, doesn’t begin to address all those “exceptions” that are only or eldest sons who are gay. Or all those nth sons who are straight. Those populations are more than statistical outliers - they’re a significant portion of the homosexual population for whom the hypothesis doesn’t hold. There must be some other component we haven’t found yet, or a different mechanism of action to account for some cases of homosexually.
It also, of course, has never been empirically tested in humans. It’s been modeled in rodents and does look like a pretty strong hypothesis, but it’s far from proven, as you seem to think it is. Therefore, reporting it as a given is not scientifically accurate.
It’s a hypothesis I personally believe will be borne out as accurate with time, but we’re not there yet.
And, as I already said, the very fact that I think homosexuality probably is congenital (not genetic) is why we should *stop *basing our demands for equality on it. As you say, what if we’re right? What if we develop hormonal treatments for mom during pregnancy so that her boys are all born straight? I think it’s perhaps ethical to offer the option, but would it be ethical to mandate it - legally or through social pressure? What if the babies can be “fixed” with hormone injections shortly after they’re born? Should we make a “homo test” mandatory during postnatal care, the way we do now for HIV?
I think if we make decent treatment of homosexuals predicated on a medical condition, then we’re setting the stage for even more horrible treatment of those who chose not to treat their homosexuality. And again, since their “condition” is one that impacts no one besides other consenting adults, I find that abhorrent.
We should be decent to gay people because they’re people. That’s it, really. That’s all the reason a decent person needs to accord gay people the same rights as everyone else.
(The bisexual argument was just so full of strawmen I’m not going to bother tilting at that windmill today. Don’t feel like choking on the chaff…)
Good post ambushed.
Much less is known about females, but then you seem to contradict yourself by coming to a conclusion about Cynthia.
Your post seems to support this for males, but leaves it as an open question for females - you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat.
I think a problem with this debate is that we need to define what it means to say “gay by choice” and what is Cynthia really saying:
Does the choice mean equal attraction to both genders and choosing which one for now?
Does it mean that base sexual attraction is a lower priority in this persons current circumstances, that really they are overriding that for other reasons?
Does it mean that sexual attraction is a result of being attracted to other look and personality traits - that it’s secondary and due to some other choice that triggers some emotional chain reaction that ends up including sexual attraction
Note: ambushed’s post matches what I have read and to me it makes sense, I certainly don’t think it’s a choice in general - but I also find it hard to believe that it’s as simple as that in all cases, that there isn’t some percentage that it’s more ambiguous, or has a choice element.
How far do you push this concept, though? I mean, would you (theoretically) accept the idea of some states allowing slavery? Of re-introducing anti-micengenation laws? Would your response in those situations be, “Well, if you didn’t want to be a slave/be arrested for marrying a person of another race, you should simply move?”
Where do you draw the line between things which are (even if you, personally, disagree with them, as i’m sure you do of my examples) acceptably state decisions and what is important or, well, constitutional enough to set them nation-wide?
I missed the part in Loving v. Virginia where they said two people of the same sex make a marriage.
More unsupported rhetoric. It might also stop when whiners like you quit trying to amke something special of your “love.” Straight marraiges tend to produce babies, we value that and recognize that as crucial to the survival of our species. The product of gay sex is so-called “santorum” which I can’t find a use for, and certainly is not crucial to the survival of the species.
It IS you that makes yourself a second class citizen. I’m not calling myself a second class citizen because my state hasn’t legalized medical marijuana yet. I see us as equals. I don’t know why you insist you are lesser. “Fair” doesn’t mean I get anything I want.
This debate is getting too personal here. Please confine yourselves to attacking the arguments, not the posters.
If there was anyone who was a slave themselves pushing for the legalization of slavery, and parts of the nation felt this was ok and other parts did not, I’d consider it, sure. It’s the beauty of the United States that allows some things legal in some states and other things legal in others. But I really do not find slavery and gay marriage to be even remotely similar for this analogy.
Yeah you’re right. Sorry, Miller.
My personal view is that the entire “being gay is a choice” discussion is a red herring. Whether or not something is good or bad has very little if any bearing on whether or not it is something we choose to do. There are plenty of natural things that we reject as both good and bad and the same for things we choose to do. By taking part in the argument, it distracts from the real issue at hand which is how the law and society treat gay relationships. Worse, it essentially concedes the idea that if it can be generally accepted that it’s a choice, then laws and social stigmas against it are justified. The fact of the matter is, I haven’t seen any justification for why if one accepts that homosexuality is a choice, it has any relevance on how such relationships should be treated.
It is very unfair to hold something against someone who cannot help their condition.
On the other hand, someone who chooses something knowing the consequences shouldn’t be complaining.
And as I have pointed out, gays need to stick to the “born that way theory” if they ever hope to to have a 14th amendment victory in the Supreme Court. it’s highly unlikely they could have ultimate success by that means if they go up to the S.Ct. and argue it is a choice.
So why does the argument work for the Supreme Court with religion?
Thanks, WhyNot, I was just about to say that. Religion is a choice, but it’s one of our most treasured freedoms. What you choose to say is (obviously) a choice, but free speech is something we value. I mean, a whole lot of the stuff that’s protected is a choice in one way or another, but it doesn’t stop people from having civil rights.
And, David42, I think you are almost laughably out of touch with the way most people see homosexual people these days. I rarely run across people anymore who think gays just can’t help it, poor dears. The fact is we don’t know why people are gay, but increasingly, no one cares! People want the right to love who they want, how they want. if anything, it’s straights coming around the the understanding that criminalizing homosexual behaviors is the first step to criminalizing heterosexual behaviors. First it’s gay rights, then its contraception.
Point to anywhere on this thread - hell, on this entire message board - that I’ve ever argued that gay relationships are in anyway “special.” I have never made that argument, or anything like it. What I consistently argue for is for gay relationships to be treated the same as heterosexual relationships.
It is telling that you compare the totality of a heterosexual family with one specific sex act associated with (but by no means unique to) homosexuality. And, of course, you manage to do so in a way that strongly implies that homosexuals don’t care about raising families or the continuation of the human species.
This is the most extraordinary example of blaming the victim I’ve ever seen. If a friend comes up to you with a black eye, and complains about the guy who punched him in the face, do you berate him for not getting out of the way of the guy’s fist? If you hear someone complain about a neighbor playing their stereo loud all night long so they couldn’t sleep, do you lecture them about how they can’t have everything they want, and it’s their own fault for not moving to a quieter neighborhood?
Yeah, great. You “think of us as equals.” I’d be more impressed if you treated us like equals.
I don’t think they need “born that way theory” to argue that they deserve equal protection. Queer (GLBT, whatever term you prefer) identity is a social construct. Gay people are a minority group because society has defined them that way.
You don’t say so in those words, but you describe things as they opught to be as though you are.
In my view, the only relationships (based on sex acts that set it apart from other relationships) that is worthy of celebrating, upholding, etc., by society at large are worth celebrating and dignifying not because it’s a sex act but because it is the source of all human life. Anything that puts a particular kind of sex above others based on the sex is just another way of getting your rocks off. It is fine to engage in whatever kind of sex you dig, I support you there, but don’t ask me to get all excited about it and think that it’s worthy of elevation and want to legislate legitimacy on the same terms as the act that gives life. Sorry, I am not going for it.
Particularly, it is highly offensive when gays compare their sex act as the equivalent of the act of making life. You draw comparisons between my child and your frothy mix of lube and feces and tell me it’s equal.
Nice distortion, but your sex act still is worthy of celebration, nor is any sex act.
You’re way out in left field here. Refusing to see you as the equivalent of a heterosexual couple is in no way approval of homosexual battery. I don’t see the connection between your comment and my comment it is in response to.
What I was talking about was the fact is that marijuana legalization is important to my lifestyle too, but I am not arrogant enough to demand that all people in all places conform to my desires. I’d be happy enough if my state did it. If you’re second class because everything you want is not legal in all places, then so am I. But I don’t think of myself as a second class citizen and neither should you.
There’s not a single thing I do that I would deny to you, nor a single thing that I would allow people to do that I would deny to homosexuals. You want to do something that I would deny to all, namely, mock the creation of life in marriage.
If I were ever to be persuaded, it wouldn’t be because you convinced me that a “frothy mix” is the equivalent of a baby.
Religion is enshrined in the first Amendment. Gay marriage is enshrined nowhere.
I never said I favor criminalizing homosexuality. I am 100% unequivocally adamant that the sexual behaviors between consenting adults be legal. But I am not up for some consenting adults to say their sex act is worthy while others aren’t, and that we should base rights on who you want to have sex with. I’d be more willing to grant gay marriage rights if we were also going to give marriage rights to all the different kinds of consenting adults out there.
You want to make an exclusive club of heterosexuals and homosexuals and all others lifestyles are beneath us. I’d prefer keeping it heterosexual only, if we’re not going to have everybody in on the party. To me the issue isn’t about gay rights but about the rights of all consenting adults, and I am not supporting your agenda to make homosexuals alone the equivalent of the union that creates life.
Why does it offend you so gravely that other people don’t share your opinion of marriage? Some people don’t think it’s a celebration of the source of all human life - which is isn’t; you don’t have to married to have sex and have children - they think it’s a social recognition of a relationship to two people who want to be together, and that it doesn’t make sense to deny that recognition to same-sex relationships.
Where the hell did you get the impression that’s what anybody is doing? I’ve never heard anybody make this comparison, gay or straight. I think you’re imagining this insult.
Where have I done that? Point to one thing I’ve written on these boards that can be interpreted to mean I think gay relationships are in any way special as compared to straight relationships.
Homosexuality is not defined by a sex act. It is defined by what sort of person you fall in love with, and wish to spend the rest of your life with. It’s about building a family with that person - which may or may not include the raising of children. It is, in fact, identical to heterosexual partnerships in every particular except that, if the couple wants kids, they need a artificial aid of some sort to achieve that goal. Which still makes them identical to a significant minority of heterosexual couples, who for whatever reason are also unable to conceive.
Do you understand what I’m saying? The gay rights movement is not about the freedom to have unrestricted buttsex. It’s about families. It’s about supporting another person whom you deeply care for, and being supported in turn. And yes, it’s also about raising children. Gay marriage is about all the same thing straight marriage is about, to the letter.
Dismissing every romantic relationship I’ve had with another man as producing nothing more valuable that shit mixed with lube? Can you really not see how *massively *insulting that comparison is, not just to me, but to gay people in general? Do you not see that that is a deeply bigoted comment?
I have never said this. I have never said anything even remotely like this. The only person who has ever compared having children to ass sex is you. And you are doing it to insult and belittle homosexuals. And somehow, once again, you manage to blame us for your insult.
It’s really quite remarkable.
I am not talking about a sex act. Prior to this post, I have not mentioned any sort of sex act in this thread. Especially, at not point have I made anything approaching a suggestion that any particular sex act be celebrated. Once again, this is a subject that you, and only you, have injected into this thread.
I didn’t accuse you of supporting homosexual battery, nor did I make any mention of homosexual battery, one way or the other. I was making an analogy, between the way you react to descriptions of anti-gay prejudice in this thread, to how I imagine you’d act to an instance of physical assault against another person (of unspecified sexual orientation.) Because your reaction to anti-gay prejudiced is, reliably, to blame the victim of the prejudice, I suggested that you would have a similar reaction to an even more clear-cut example of unprovoked aggression against an innocent party: namely, someone just walking up to a dude and punching him in the eye.
No, I’m a second class citizen because the laws of this country have specifically identified me, and people like me, as being undeserving of the same rights and privileges that everyone else is granted as a matter of course. Comparing this to drug laws is an incredibly stupid argument, because getting high is not universally recognized as a fundamental aspect of human social interaction.
I don’t think of myself as a second class citizen. Which is why I object so strongly to be treated like a second class citizen.
And, again, you have attributed to me a position that I have never taken in any way, shape, or form.
Why is that, I have to wonder? Is it something specific to me in particular? Because I know for a fact that nothing I’ve written here could reasonably be interpreted in the way you are interpreting it. Are these positions that you have assigned to me based simply on the fact that I’m gay?
Because there’s a word for people who do that.