Well, that’s simply not true. Here’s an easy analogy for you: if a woman drinks heavily while pregnant, there’s a chance her kid will be born with fetal alcohol syndrome. It’s not genetic; there’s no “fetal alcohol syndrome” gene, but it’s certainly something the kid is born with, and it is in no way a choice.
I wasn’t really responding to you, except perhapsd to the extent that you support the sort of stuff that these “Christians” were quoted as saying, e.g.:
If it’s their right to be intolerant like that, then others have the right to be intolerant of them.
[QUOTE]
“The message is, you’re free to worship as you like, but don’t you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church,” said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.[/QUOTE}
Is he saying that gays should be free to be gay, as long as they don’t talk about it in public? If so, he’s doing exactly what feels is harrassing to him.
As I said even if homosexuality is a choice, it doesn’t change the way I feel now, as it shouldn’t. I was simply saying lumping racist’s with homophobes may not be the best option. Both deserve the ire, but lumping them (racists and homophobes) together is incorrect.
It’s clever of you to take this approach. I explained many of the problems with your idea, and then you repeated the idea without actually even looking at what I said! Did I use a big word you didn’t know again or something? Or do you just think that if you pretend not to see the arguments I made, no one else will notice?
See I would like to believe that, but something stops me. It’s the (I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS) “cured” homosexuals that supposedly lived for decades “normal”
You cannot cure something that is ingrained in us could we? I cannot be sent away and my blue eyes turn brown.
But damn-it I am not arguing with anyone on this, I will just bow out and say “Yes it is most certainly no way in hell a choice, you all are right” because this is not an argument I am willing to fight about. No matter if it is choice or gene, prejudice is wrong.
Are you reading and COMPREHENDING what others are saying? I believe that you see the words, it’s just not apparent (yet) that you understand what they mean.
I’m really not trying to be an ass, it’s just that I have a problem with people saying the same fucking things over and over.
Sorry for continuing the hijack…
To be honest I was overwhelmed I missed your post. Please accept my apologies. You’re right I am sorry I was wrong, what you believe is established scientific fact there is no theory/guesswork involved that could be incorrect. So that automatically makes my assumptions incorrect.
That’s not the point of my analogy. What I’m saying is that you’re creating a false dichotomy between choice and genetics. Something can not be genetic, and still not be a choice. The fact that something is not genetic does not automatically mean that it is a choice. There’s no end of other factors entirely outside of our control that can shape who we are as a person.
Okay, but if you’re going to make that argument, you need a better reason than, “one’s genetic and the other isn’t.” My objection to racism isn’t founded on genetics, so that argument doesn’t mean anything to me. Give the foundation for my opposition to racism as outlined in my previous post, can you give me a reason to differentiate between racists and homophobes?
Ehhhh…
There is no one gene for alcoholism, so being alcoholic is a choice?
There is no one gene for intelligence, but people don’t choose their IQs.
Besides that, even if it were a choice, I don’t get why it is proper to try to limit its expression. I bet there are lots of clubs consisting of people who do choose an affinity - shouid they be shut down because some putz objects?
Can we just pretend like Abbie isn’t here, skip round 437 of “choice or not not a choice” and get back to calling this Georgia Tech twit a twit? Because clearly, the concept that sexual orientation is the result of a complex series of interactions between any number of as yet unknown factors is well beyond Abbie’s ability to comprehend, and continuing to discuss it is a classic example of “Teaching the pig to sing syndrome.”
Most people would say these people are not “cured”. They’re either lying to themselves (most end up “relapsing”) or else they were bisexual to begin with.
I do have to wonder about the issue of charters and funding, and how that might clash with Constitutional protections of free speech and religious practice. If an institution chose to deny a conservative Christian club funding because it issued hate speech, could that institution risk losing Federal funding, à la the banning of ROTC on some campuses?
Exactly true. As in the example of handedness. You could train, cajole, and abuse someone into using their opposite hand, but that would not turn a right hander into a left hander, it would just make them a clumsy imitation of one.
Moreover, race is a very genetically complex thing as well. In many ways, “race” has no biological meaning.
By the way, I aways see sexuality on a continuum - and most people live at one end or the other. But for lots of people, they live in the middle. For those people there is an element of choice in the matter. I’ve always suspected that cured homosexuals are bisexuals with a stronger preference for their own sex rather than the opposite sex, but unlike people who are completely straight or completely gay, they can find fullfillment with and be attracted to the opposite sex.
One thing I’ve noticed is how the dumber people on the boards tend to lose their ability to write comprehensible sentences when they’re upset.
Look. You brought it up. You clearly don’t know the first thing about the issue. The bottom line is that whatever causes people to be gay is complicated, and we don’t know the first thing about it. It appears to be a complex interaction between geens and environment; there are very definite and well-established links between certain genetic traits and homosexuality; it’s shown that if one identical twin is gay then the other is likely to be gay as well - though not certain, which shows that genetics is not the only issue in question. It’s clear from research that there is a connection between one’s genetic makeup and their sexual orientation.
Further, your assertion that either there must be one single gene or else a choice is simply stupid, as has been explained over and over. I’m sorry you don’t know anything about this subject, and I’m sorry you feel some ideological imperative to claim something that you simply can’t demonstrate. But don’t get snarky at me when all I’ve done is point out that you don’t know the first thing about what you’re talking about on the subject. No one knows the answers here; there is no “scientific fact” and when you claimed I was presenting what I said as “scientific fact”, you made yourself a liar. Stop acting like a martyr and either apologize for talking about something you don’t know the first thing about or else do the damn research and come back with some facts to support your claims.
It’s a simple choice. Either come back with some research and information, or stop whining that no one believes you. I know you don’t seem to understand this, but the rest of us are not obligated to agree with you just because you say something, and if you can’t come up with anything believable to support your claims, don’t be surprised when no one believes you.
Or you could fucking use your fucking common fucking sense and fucking pay fucking attention to the fucking homosexuals who fucking report their firsthand fucking experience with their own fucking homosexuality instead of fucking trying to fucking hide your fucking prejudices behind bullshit fucking illogic, you fucking idiot fuckwit fuck.
Tell us how you really feel, Cervaise
Hm, I chose to be percieved as straight when I married my first husband, and again when I married mrAru. I am tecnically bi since I have had consensual homosexual encounters as well as consensual heterosexual encounters.
I’m not aware of campuses banning ROTC, but a number of campuses banned military recruiters from the grounds because of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. The Solomon Amendment allowed the Secretary of Defense to pull federal funding from schools that barred such recruiters. The Supreme COurt recently upheld the Solomon Amendment.