Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

I've heard all of that before Ghost. But if you read her original statement she is very defiant about her homosexuality being a choice. Even going as far as to say no one else can define her "gayness." Before collapsing under pressure and allowing GLBT define her gayness.

"I understand that for many people it's not, but for me it's a choice, and you don't get to define my gayness for me,"

 

So you're predicting the future now?

And I've added nothing to the conversation? I think showing that your buzzword isn't working adds a lot to the conversation. After all, that's what it was. You needed shock value so you said "OMG They're attacking her first amendment rights" despite the fact that the first amendment only covers what the government does.

And therefore we can ignore the main percentage for whom it was not.

...

 

I never said that. I mearly said that homosexuality is not always decided from birth.

 

Does that mean that you think that sometimes it is?

Or if it usually is?

Again, my thoughts are that of all people defining themselves as gay, it's probably over half that were that way from birth. I realize it's maybe a stereotype, but I'd estimate a greater proportion of men who identify themselves as gay probably do not consider it as having been a choice.

Which is not to detract anything from females who feel the same way, and I have absolutely no doubt there are plenty of them. I mean, I don't want Jodie Foster to come down to my office and defenstrate me.

Oh wait... is that not official yet?

 

"Drawn to it from abuse" sounds insane. When I was 7, my friend's sister "bad touch"'d me. I don't feel gay. Or did it make me straight and I was actually gay. I'm wondering how exactly this abuse affects it.

On the flip side, biological determinism, we've been over this. Biological determinists not too long ago were talking about how blacks had lower IQs. Within my lifetime. (And I'm not that old.) You really want to go there? In addition, the gay gene advocates pretends bisexuals don't exist. Many just assume male bisexuals don't exist, often saying all women are bisexual. (For the record, any time anyone theorizes all women are bisexual, he should keep his hands where I can see them.)

A slightly more advanced version says gay men have less testosterone. Ignoring the lack of clinical evidence for this, um, less testosterone? Seriously? If you have less testosterone, this tends to mean you are more depressed, have weight problems, and have less sexual drive. Period. Also, your genitals may be smaller, and if you are genetically predisposed to baldness or heavy body hair, it may not happen. Beyond this, nothing is conclusive. Also, we really don't want to return to the stereotype of gay men as effeminate.

Doesn't help much that some of these studies look at HIV-positive gay men's brains versus HIV-negative straight men's brains, adding another confounding factor. (I'll give you a clue: It's the virus known to alter brain structure.)

 

Gonk, I would imagine a majority of sexual orientation is from birth. I don't know. But I've heard of instances where identical twins each have different orientation. Can't believe everything I see on TV tho.

 

"Drawn to it from abuse" sounds insane. When I was 7, my friend's sister "bad touch"'d me. I don't feel gay. Or did it make me straight and I was actually gay. I'm wondering how exactly this abuse affects it.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

As KK notes, there are people that have been raped and identify themselves as gay who very much might not have made that change otherwise. I think this has been documented. And I can tell you from those I know and have been close to that what you describe, to some people, is getting off lightly. Maybe not at all to those who haven't been abused at all, but to others it's a whole other ball game.

To be "bad touched" once by someone that was not your friend but a sibling of a friend is probably one of the easier categories of abuse to recover from -- not to suggest that even that is easy. But at the core of abuse is a betrayal of trust, and the damage abuse causes increases by three factors generally: the age of the abuser versus the victim, the frequency of the abuse, and how close of a relationship the abuser has to the abused.

Therefore to be touched once by a friend's sister is no doubt traumatic. But to dial that all the way up and be the frequent recipient of abuse, no matter the form, by a father? That is something that will seriously destroy someone's psyche and can amount to no less than brainwashing. Trust me, given those three factors it's possible for victims to believe the sky is made of foam rubber, let alone question their own sexuality.

 

Not at all. I think that there are a fair number of people who choose heterosexual behavior. Some are happier with it than others. Some might be able to have a normal, happy sex life (by normal, I mean relatively active; I do not imply anything with regards to their partners of choice, and by happy I mean able to enjoy it). For some, they might not be interested in sex but can lie back and think of England when the relationship demands it. Some might not be gaining any pleasure from sex at all, and be quite unhappy in their situation while still identifying as straight (one good public example of that situation would be Chely Wright).

 

Anecdotally, it does seem that gays are more likely to have been abused...

 

I wouldn't say that at all. In fact I don't think someone that is homosexual is any more likely to have suffered abuse than someone who is straight. I don't think that's the causal relationship.

I think it's more correct to say that someone that has been abused is more likely to be sexually confused, depending on the extent.

Someone that is homosexual and is 'in the closet', to me, isn't so much experiencing confusion as denial. And they're in denial because they know that what they're interested in alters the expectations they might have had of their life, because we still live in a society where there are still taboos associated with it. They're not really the out-and-out taboos they once were, but we're still not at the point where two men chastely kissing in public is not going to raise eyebrows.

To me that's different than an abused person suffering sexual confusion. Some people have conflicting desires and they don't understand that some of those desires were more or less brainwashed INTO them and did not come from a 'natural' state. Homosexuality is not the norm in society, but it's a completely natural development. What these people are suffering was created in them by other humans.

 

Should it matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not? Religion is a choice too and yet we have laws banning discrimination based on religion.

 

It does when you are trying to create a victimized minority. But is religion a choice? Can a person help what they believe is right? Do they choose when they think is right and what they think is wrong?

 

ER, yes... I would definitely say people can choose what they believe is right.

If you're talking about any sort of innate behavior, I think that has more to do with sensory empathy than a given religion. It just so happens that many religion correspond with much of what basic empathy would call upon one to do: the golden rule, and so forth.

As for homosexuality being a choice such that it renders discrimination impossible... er, I don't get that at all. Even if it WAS a free choice to 100% of the people, that's like saying it's fair to discriminate against religious converts at the very least. To say that one can't help but convert to specifically Islam or specifically Catholicism or specifically Mormonism but could totally help being in a homosexual relationship?

That's sort of an absurd notion if that's what you're suggesting. I, a white caucasian male without any knowledge of Japan, was just SPONTANIOUSLY drawn into the Shinto religion?

DNA and Genes can decide stuff like sexuality, but it doesn't know about any specific religions and their mythologies any more than my new PC knows how to communicate with an 80s-era 'Space Invaders' Arcade machine.

 

Maybe, maybe not Gonk. We certainly can choose whether or not to convert to a different religion. But let's say I don't want to be a Christian. That's one thing. Many gay people have professed to not wanting to be gay. But can I help it if, dispite my misgivings about Christianity (hypotheticly, you understand) it makes sense to me everytime I read the Bible? I didn't make THAT choice of the Bible bringing me comfort and clearing my vision. It just happens,.

 

Because the government has no compelling reason to recognize voluntary relationships between members of the same sex.

 

That's where the next generation comes from and it is accepted that children concieved and born into a wedded household have the best chance for success.

 

Under your supposition, there would be people who aren't allowed to get married. that would raise real Constitutional issues. The government can't tell infertile people that they can't get married. They can't tell anybody that they can't get married. Marriage is open to everyone. (Unless you are already married) There is no law stating that homosexuals can't get married. They can. They have to follow the same laws everyone else has to.

 

I already answered that. The government is complelled to recognise marriage because it's accepted that that is the best environment from which to bring children into this society. So they encourage marriage hoping that it will foster the best possible generation. There is a reason for marriage. But the government cannot tell someone that they don't have the right to marry. We all can, if we wish, partake. There is no law stating that a spesific person can't get married. If there was, that would be a Constitutional issue.

 

Translation: "I'm under the false impression that all pedophiles are strangers in back alleys who take my child away and sell his buttocks on the lucrative child porn circuit."

In reality, most pedophiles are people you know.

You're basically engaging in the same fallacy I saw earlire wrt: male-male sexual assault.

 

You didn't address my argument that banning same-sex marriage actually leaves more children in the foster system. How is that better for the children than having two loving same-sex parents?

Not having participated in any other aspect of the thread, the answer is that it probably doesn't impact it all that much. What you're talking about is adoption procedure, not marriage recognition. As far as I can tell, only 3 states expressly prohibit adoption by same sex couples who aren't married, although it's unclear how civil unions/domestic partner registry or similar concepts would be considered. Additionally, all 50 states allow for single, unmarried parent adoption. So even if there is a state that doesn't officially recognize same sex marriage, the marriage itself wouldn't be much of an instrument to "reducing the number of children in foster care," if that's the goal.

There would have to be a whole host of factors that come into play, such as every same sex couple committing to pulling a "Braneglina," and each adopting half a dozen foster kids, or something along those lines. Then, if there was a state where civil unions weren't recognized, + same sex marriages weren't allowed, + specific unmarried partners were prohibited from adopting, these kids would end up staying in the foster system.