My brothe's blue eyes are detirmined by genetics . . . he is the only sibling among many who has blue eyes . . . neither parents have blue eyes . . . still, a gene made his eyes blue.
Both my parents are straight . . . my sister is not, she definitely did not decide to become gay
it could be genetics in the same manner that my brother's eyes are blue . . . it could be developmental and still be a form of determinism . . . even Freudian notions of development do not believe that our sexuality is a matter of choice . . . we are 'overdetermined' in a nearly genetic manner . . . and there are other theoreis as well
but only assholes who have pathetic political agendas and fear different forms of human love will claim that sexuality is all choice . . .
Leave the other argument about natural selection aside (that was mainly a joke) what is the clear evidence?
It comes from the same place that all studies of genetic influence on human behavior come from: Twin studies. Identical twins are far more likely to be of the same sexual orientation than fraternal twins (I believe the concordance rate is around 50% for MZ twins), and fraternal twins have about the same concordance as adopted kids raised together.
It comes from the same place that all studies of genetic influence on human behavior come from: Twin studies. Identical twins are far more likely to be of the same sexual orientation than fraternal twins (I believe the concordance rate is around 50% for MZ twins), and fraternal twins have about the same concordance as adopted kids raised together.
According to this from here its not that clear. And my corner of science (sociology) have found other non genetic correlations between types of social enviroment (from upbringing to the broader social system) and rate of homosexuality.
And even if it was a choice (which I don´t believe if we are to define a choice as something you do deliberate, conscious or at least something you can make conscious) then this discussion have no impact on the moral or political side of things. Peoples sexuality is their own buisness, no matter why tey have it.
Oh who cares? I don't care if Cheney used the f-word insulting someone when he thought he was off the record (like anybody is off the record on the Senate floor), or if Kerry used the f-word in print, vetted and approved.
As for the partisan bickering here, I'll just quote our President, when he thought he was off the record: "Who cares what you think"
Do you honestly believe that homosexuality is a choice?
Are there not other ways of conceiving of being determined with regards to genderization than complete genetic lines and/or choice?
Obviously there are . . . but any issue with more than a black/white, yes/no answer has been shown to be well beyond your grasp . .
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
My brothe's blue eyes are detirmined by genetics . . . he is the only sibling among many who has blue eyes . . . neither parents have blue eyes . . . still, a gene made his eyes blue.
Both my parents are straight . . . my sister is not, she definitely did not decide to become gay
it could be genetics in the same manner that my brother's eyes are blue . . . it could be developmental and still be a form of determinism . . . even Freudian notions of development do not believe that our sexuality is a matter of choice . . . we are 'overdetermined' in a nearly genetic manner . . . and there are other theoreis as well
but only assholes who have pathetic political agendas and fear different forms of human love will claim that sexuality is all choice . . .
BTW, if the shoe fits wear it.
Do I believe homosexuality is a choice? Yes I do. I've not read any studies that prove to me otherwise. The claim that no one would choose it as a lifestyle so it must be genetic is unconvincing. I watch people consciously choose aspects of their lifestyle that are much worse than homosexuality and yet no one thinks them genetic, or if they do, they don't condone it.
But what I love best about your posts are all the person insults.
Tell me Pfflam, do you endorse all possible forms of human love and sexuality? Because calling me a bunch of names and claiming I only endorse black and white solutions over a disagreement, when you follow the same pattern and thinking but include exactly ONE more form of human love and sexuality isn't exactly proving out what you say.
If your wife just started sleeping around on you and claimed that her lack of monogomy were genetic, would you endorse it? It's just another choice. If who you want to sleep with is genetic, how is monogomy not? How is the age of 18 genetic? How is loving only one partner for a lifetime or even only one partner at a time genetic?
All those laws, it appears go against human sexuality. Unless you are willing to basically bring it down to anytime , anywhere, with anyone(thing) at any age, then you are intolerant as well. You just choose different tolerances and intolerances than me. So take your prejudices and your insults to yourself.
You are the cause. Caling people liars when they don't see eye to eye with you.
I'll be the effect.
Fuck off.
Nick
You can't even stay on topic. Keep the talk of homosexuals out of the thread and quit lying to try and make a point. It makes you look silly.
You ignore my point because it proves you wrong. That's lying, or at least intellectual dishonesty.
Quote:
It doesn't matter what Leahy did, it's the response that is the potential problem. If you choose to ignore that [the language was] inappropriate on the Senate floor, then come out and say that you don't give a crap if Cheney uses profanity on the Senate floor even if it's against the Senate rules.
I for one don't give a fuck what he says or where he says it. But I'm not going to lie and say it's welcome on the Senate floor. I use profanity here when I know it's not always welcome because I believe we should all use language to communicate.
You can't even stay on topic. Keep the talk of homosexuals out of the thread and quit lying to try and make a point. It makes you look silly.
You ignore my point because it proves you wrong. That's lying, or at least intellectual dishonesty.
How does your point prove me wrong? The Senate was not in session. It wasn't even during a debate or discussion. It was just an side discussion. There was no yielding of time, Robert's Rules or other such issues. You are taking a debate term (When you have to floor, you are permitted to speak) and twisting it. (Cheney was standing on the floor in the Senate chambers)
You are the one being totally dishonest here. You are twisting nonsense that you claim not even to care about.
You are twisting nonsense that you claim not even to care about.
I don't care if Cheney says Fuck You to anyone, including me. I do care if there's a Senate rule he breaks. Did he? Some people weren't sure. But, you refuse to even acknowledge he was on shaky ground with his words. That's because you're being hypocritical, dishonest or ignorant. I'm not sure which, but you're usually not too ignorant.
Do I believe homosexuality is a choice? Yes I do. I've not read any studies that prove to me otherwise. The claim that no one would choose it as a lifestyle so it must be genetic is unconvincing. I watch people consciously choose aspects of their lifestyle that are much worse than homosexuality and yet no one thinks them genetic, or if they do, they don't condone it.
But what I love best about your posts are all the person insults.
Tell me Pfflam, do you endorse all possible forms of human love and sexuality? Because calling me a bunch of names and claiming I only endorse black and white solutions over a disagreement, when you follow the same pattern and thinking but include exactly ONE more form of human love and sexuality isn't exactly proving out what you say.
If your wife just started sleeping around on you and claimed that her lack of monogomy were genetic, would you endorse it? It's just another choice. If who you want to sleep with is genetic, how is monogomy not? How is the age of 18 genetic? How is loving only one partner for a lifetime or even only one partner at a time genetic?
All those laws, it appears go against human sexuality. Unless you are willing to basically bring it down to anytime , anywhere, with anyone(thing) at any age, then you are intolerant as well. You just choose different tolerances and intolerances than me. So take your prejudices and your insults to yourself.
Nick
Did I insult you?
Oh well . . . .
I guess the shoe fit . . . I mean that "only assholes who have pathetic political agendas and fear different forms of human love will claim that sexuality is all choice" shoe. Other than that, it wasn't meant for you specifically, only those "assholes who have pathetic political agendas and fear different forms of human love will [that] claim that sexuality is all choice"
"All forms of human love? No, only love between consenting adults . . . and as many consenting adults as are consenting and uncoerced . . . hey, that's freedom baby!
Do I approve of people having non-monogamous relationships? If they so choose . . .
Do I approve of my wife having non-monogamous relationships? no. We are monogamous and are committed to each other for life.
Current genetic science shows that there is actually a gene that can be tweeked to adjust one's proclivities for monogamy: mice that were once non-monogamous can be made to act monogamous . . .look at last week's google news . . . but that is neither here not there.
There is a difference between being biologically unable to get physically excited over one form of love-object over another, and deciding to have sex with one person or another, or dress in drag, or etc.
The manner in which people deal with this situation, (the non-controllable impulse towards one form of partner over another) is probably what you call 'choice'. However, there is no choice in that innitial lack of impulse or presence of impulse.
It would be like saying to you: you have the choice to not be a sexual creature, to not have sexual feelings and thoughts . . . which you might actually think is true . . . but you would be wrong -you cannot escape sexuality unless you do something extreme and biological . . . not simply by 'choice'.
How you act on that indeniable impulse is choice. But to ask millions of homosexual people to not love in a manner that is felt to be natural for them because you have some backward notion of sexuality and masculinity is wrong, it is unfair, small-minded, and, most likely, from all the evidence, mean-spirited and spiteful.
But what am I doing trying to argue sensibly with Trumptman ?. . . it has long ago shown islef to be impossible
No matter what I say, he will glomb onto a tiny fraction of my post, probably the all-too-easy insults, and then respond ONLY to that, completely sidesteping any real engagement with the post . . . -it would be infuriating except it is just too common-
You mark my words; even with this pointing out of his tactics, he will still do it!
My ignore file is growing. Pfflam has just been added. Now I can stop wasting my time with all these unemployed lifeless people who enjoy attempting to make others miseable.
I believe that the rules against profanity only apply when the Senate is in session.
Shhhh... I already mentioned that to him. I also mentioned the whole standing on the "floor" versus having the "floor" to speak. Giving him information like this is apparently "ignoring" him.
My ignore file is growing. Pfflam has just been added. Now I can stop wasting my time with all these unemployed lifeless people who enjoy attempting to make others miseable.
Nick
desperate now aren't we . . .
and guess what people . . . notice how he did EXACTLY what I said that he would do
[B]Do I believe homosexuality is a choice? Yes I do. I've not read any studies that prove to me otherwise. The claim that no one would choose it as a lifestyle so it must be genetic is unconvincing. I watch people consciously choose aspects of their lifestyle that are much worse than homosexuality and yet no one thinks them genetic, or if they do, they don't condone it.
Trumptman, you are drastically oversimplifying this, imposing a black and white stamp on a complex scenario with almost as many colors and shades as there are people. Human sexuality is not an either/or state: There are many folk who are predominantly straight, but occasionally have the very occasional same-sex experience. There are people who are predominantly gay who occasionally will have a "straight" encounter, once in a while, and there are some who swing both ways, in any number of proportions. If you are straight, do you choose to be straight, or were you born straight? An absurd question, yes...and equally ridiculous as positing that gay people choose that sexuality state.Similarly, do you reckon a left-hander chooses to be a left hander?
Here in Los Angeles, there is a huge gay community and I have met many gay people, both men and women. I have yet to meet anyone who is a fully confirmed gay who reckons that their sexuality is a conscious choice, as if they had an alternative. Many truly gay people become aware of something about themselves they don't quite understand, from very early childhood, a long time before they develop their secondary sexual characteristsics.
Social conservatives and the religious right maintain that homosexuality is a choice in order to justify their philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin". The pronouncement in Leviticus that "homosexuality is an abomination" is their great fallback, and it simplifies and encapsulates a complex situation, enabling religious fundies to assign guilt and pass judgement by rote without having to go to the inconvenience of thinking. I also find it not very surprising that the religious right chooses to enforce this particular example of Leviticus' admonitions, while roundly ignoring those that infringe on, for example, a popular culinary tradition. Leviticus cites that "the consumption of shellfish is an abomination". Perhaps it is relatively difficult to persecute or effectively dump guilt on the shrimp, whelk and mussel-eating sector of the population.
Trumptman, you are drastically oversimplifying this, imposing a black and white stamp on a complex scenario with almost as many colors and shades as there are people. Human sexuality is not an either/or state: There are many folk who are predominantly straight, but occasionally have the very occasional same-sex experience. There are people who are predominantly gay who occasionally will have a "straight" encounter, once in a while, and there are some who swing both ways, in any number of proportions. If you are straight, do you choose to be straight, or were you born straight? An absurd question, yes...and equally ridiculous as positing that gay people choose that sexuality state.Similarly, do you reckon a left-hander chooses to be a left hander?
Here in Los Angeles, there is a huge gay community and I have met many gay people, both men and women. I have yet to meet anyone who is a fully confirmed gay who reckons that their sexuality is a conscious choice, as if they had an alternative. Many truly gay people become aware of something about themselves they don't quite understand, from very early childhood, a long time before they develop their secondary sexual characteristsics.
Social conservatives and the religious right maintain that homosexuality is a choice in order to justify their philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin". The pronouncement in Leviticus that "homosexuality is an abomination" is their great fallback, and it simplifies and encapsulates a complex situation, enabling religious fundies to assign guilt and pass judgement by rote without having to go to the inconvenience of thinking. I also find it not very surprising that the religious right chooses to enforce this particular example of Leviticus' admonitions, while roundly ignoring those that infringe on, for example, a popular culinary tradition. Leviticus cites that "the consumption of shellfish is an abomination". Perhaps it is relatively difficult to persecute or effectively dump guilt on the shrimp, whelk and mussel-eating sector of the population.
Sammi,
Great post. So we don't get accused of trying to sidetrack the Cheney telling someone to fuck off thread, perhaps you could post it as a seperate topic. I know I've already been charged with that once simply by replying to others like yourself. I know you don't want to be part of the great conservative conspiracy to silence all those who wish to denounce people who curse. So please start a different thread.
Never mind sammi jo . . .your well written thoughtful post receives only a whisp of half thought . .
He can't actually respond to a well argued thought about the issue of sexuality . . . he has made that clear
well . . . since he happily has me on ignore I'll talk about that issue to others.
IMO, it is hard to believe that there still exists supposedly intelligent people who question the notion that our sexual preferences are simply a matter of choice . . . .
repressed homosexuality does exist: someone who has made a barely unconsciouse choice to deny their real desires . . . it is a choice to deny one's real proclivities. In many psychological theories about this, those who deny to themselves their own proclivities the pressure of the denied urge returns in dangerous forms . . . paranoia, and egotistic power-tripping, and, particularly, an inordinant amount of focus on injustice done to the male sex by women, a burried misogyny, particularly with and through projected authority figures/father-images, such as judges or even in more abstracted form, through the legal system, seem to point to thiskind of repressed homosexuality.
It is odd that repressed homosexuality is unconsciouse but shows itself in its 'denied' form, through strict authoritarianism and hatred of women, at least in some psychological models . . .
Comments
Both my parents are straight . . . my sister is not, she definitely did not decide to become gay
it could be genetics in the same manner that my brother's eyes are blue . . . it could be developmental and still be a form of determinism . . . even Freudian notions of development do not believe that our sexuality is a matter of choice . . . we are 'overdetermined' in a nearly genetic manner . . . and there are other theoreis as well
but only assholes who have pathetic political agendas and fear different forms of human love will claim that sexuality is all choice . . .
BTW, if the shoe fits wear it.
Originally posted by Anders
Leave the other argument about natural selection aside (that was mainly a joke) what is the clear evidence?
It comes from the same place that all studies of genetic influence on human behavior come from: Twin studies. Identical twins are far more likely to be of the same sexual orientation than fraternal twins (I believe the concordance rate is around 50% for MZ twins), and fraternal twins have about the same concordance as adopted kids raised together.
Originally posted by trumptman
I choose you behaving in an entirely irrational and strange manner.
You have just ignored causality. The effect is not determined in any manner by the cause.
Claiming no relationship between cause and effect is very much full of crap and lying.
So enjoy.
Nick
Yup. Lying.
Originally posted by BRussell
It comes from the same place that all studies of genetic influence on human behavior come from: Twin studies. Identical twins are far more likely to be of the same sexual orientation than fraternal twins (I believe the concordance rate is around 50% for MZ twins), and fraternal twins have about the same concordance as adopted kids raised together.
According to this from here its not that clear. And my corner of science (sociology) have found other non genetic correlations between types of social enviroment (from upbringing to the broader social system) and rate of homosexuality.
And even if it was a choice (which I don´t believe if we are to define a choice as something you do deliberate, conscious or at least something you can make conscious) then this discussion have no impact on the moral or political side of things. Peoples sexuality is their own buisness, no matter why tey have it.
As for the partisan bickering here, I'll just quote our President, when he thought he was off the record: "Who cares what you think"
Originally posted by pfflam
Do you honestly believe that homosexuality is a choice?
Are there not other ways of conceiving of being determined with regards to genderization than complete genetic lines and/or choice?
Obviously there are . . . but any issue with more than a black/white, yes/no answer has been shown to be well beyond your grasp . .
Originally posted by pfflam
My brothe's blue eyes are detirmined by genetics . . . he is the only sibling among many who has blue eyes . . . neither parents have blue eyes . . . still, a gene made his eyes blue.
Both my parents are straight . . . my sister is not, she definitely did not decide to become gay
it could be genetics in the same manner that my brother's eyes are blue . . . it could be developmental and still be a form of determinism . . . even Freudian notions of development do not believe that our sexuality is a matter of choice . . . we are 'overdetermined' in a nearly genetic manner . . . and there are other theoreis as well
but only assholes who have pathetic political agendas and fear different forms of human love will claim that sexuality is all choice . . .
BTW, if the shoe fits wear it.
Do I believe homosexuality is a choice? Yes I do. I've not read any studies that prove to me otherwise. The claim that no one would choose it as a lifestyle so it must be genetic is unconvincing. I watch people consciously choose aspects of their lifestyle that are much worse than homosexuality and yet no one thinks them genetic, or if they do, they don't condone it.
But what I love best about your posts are all the person insults.
Tell me Pfflam, do you endorse all possible forms of human love and sexuality? Because calling me a bunch of names and claiming I only endorse black and white solutions over a disagreement, when you follow the same pattern and thinking but include exactly ONE more form of human love and sexuality isn't exactly proving out what you say.
If your wife just started sleeping around on you and claimed that her lack of monogomy were genetic, would you endorse it? It's just another choice. If who you want to sleep with is genetic, how is monogomy not? How is the age of 18 genetic? How is loving only one partner for a lifetime or even only one partner at a time genetic?
All those laws, it appears go against human sexuality. Unless you are willing to basically bring it down to anytime , anywhere, with anyone(thing) at any age, then you are intolerant as well. You just choose different tolerances and intolerances than me. So take your prejudices and your insults to yourself.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Yup. Lying.
Here I'll prove what I'm saying to you.
You are the cause. Caling people liars when they don't see eye to eye with you.
I'll be the effect.
Fuck off.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Here I'll prove what I'm saying to you.
You are the cause. Caling people liars when they don't see eye to eye with you.
I'll be the effect.
Fuck off.
Nick
You can't even stay on topic. Keep the talk of homosexuals out of the thread and quit lying to try and make a point. It makes you look silly.
You ignore my point because it proves you wrong. That's lying, or at least intellectual dishonesty.
It doesn't matter what Leahy did, it's the response that is the potential problem. If you choose to ignore that [the language was] inappropriate on the Senate floor, then come out and say that you don't give a crap if Cheney uses profanity on the Senate floor even if it's against the Senate rules.
I for one don't give a fuck what he says or where he says it. But I'm not going to lie and say it's welcome on the Senate floor. I use profanity here when I know it's not always welcome because I believe we should all use language to communicate.
Originally posted by bunge
You can't even stay on topic. Keep the talk of homosexuals out of the thread and quit lying to try and make a point. It makes you look silly.
You ignore my point because it proves you wrong. That's lying, or at least intellectual dishonesty.
How does your point prove me wrong? The Senate was not in session. It wasn't even during a debate or discussion. It was just an side discussion. There was no yielding of time, Robert's Rules or other such issues. You are taking a debate term (When you have to floor, you are permitted to speak) and twisting it. (Cheney was standing on the floor in the Senate chambers)
You are the one being totally dishonest here. You are twisting nonsense that you claim not even to care about.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are twisting nonsense that you claim not even to care about.
I don't care if Cheney says Fuck You to anyone, including me. I do care if there's a Senate rule he breaks. Did he? Some people weren't sure. But, you refuse to even acknowledge he was on shaky ground with his words. That's because you're being hypocritical, dishonest or ignorant. I'm not sure which, but you're usually not too ignorant.
I have always been slow on these things. Please explain it to me
Traits known to be genetic that reduce/completely prohibit reproduction rates are still around. Why would homosexuality be any different?
Originally posted by trumptman
Do I believe homosexuality is a choice? Yes I do. I've not read any studies that prove to me otherwise. The claim that no one would choose it as a lifestyle so it must be genetic is unconvincing. I watch people consciously choose aspects of their lifestyle that are much worse than homosexuality and yet no one thinks them genetic, or if they do, they don't condone it.
But what I love best about your posts are all the person insults.
Tell me Pfflam, do you endorse all possible forms of human love and sexuality? Because calling me a bunch of names and claiming I only endorse black and white solutions over a disagreement, when you follow the same pattern and thinking but include exactly ONE more form of human love and sexuality isn't exactly proving out what you say.
If your wife just started sleeping around on you and claimed that her lack of monogomy were genetic, would you endorse it? It's just another choice. If who you want to sleep with is genetic, how is monogomy not? How is the age of 18 genetic? How is loving only one partner for a lifetime or even only one partner at a time genetic?
All those laws, it appears go against human sexuality. Unless you are willing to basically bring it down to anytime , anywhere, with anyone(thing) at any age, then you are intolerant as well. You just choose different tolerances and intolerances than me. So take your prejudices and your insults to yourself.
Nick
Did I insult you?
Oh well . . . .
I guess the shoe fit . . . I mean that "only assholes who have pathetic political agendas and fear different forms of human love will claim that sexuality is all choice" shoe. Other than that, it wasn't meant for you specifically, only those "assholes who have pathetic political agendas and fear different forms of human love will [that] claim that sexuality is all choice"
"All forms of human love? No, only love between consenting adults . . . and as many consenting adults as are consenting and uncoerced . . . hey, that's freedom baby!
Do I approve of people having non-monogamous relationships? If they so choose . . .
Do I approve of my wife having non-monogamous relationships? no. We are monogamous and are committed to each other for life.
Current genetic science shows that there is actually a gene that can be tweeked to adjust one's proclivities for monogamy: mice that were once non-monogamous can be made to act monogamous . . .look at last week's google news . . . but that is neither here not there.
There is a difference between being biologically unable to get physically excited over one form of love-object over another, and deciding to have sex with one person or another, or dress in drag, or etc.
The manner in which people deal with this situation, (the non-controllable impulse towards one form of partner over another) is probably what you call 'choice'. However, there is no choice in that innitial lack of impulse or presence of impulse.
It would be like saying to you: you have the choice to not be a sexual creature, to not have sexual feelings and thoughts . . . which you might actually think is true . . . but you would be wrong -you cannot escape sexuality unless you do something extreme and biological . . . not simply by 'choice'.
How you act on that indeniable impulse is choice. But to ask millions of homosexual people to not love in a manner that is felt to be natural for them because you have some backward notion of sexuality and masculinity is wrong, it is unfair, small-minded, and, most likely, from all the evidence, mean-spirited and spiteful.
But what am I doing trying to argue sensibly with Trumptman ?. . . it has long ago shown islef to be impossible
No matter what I say, he will glomb onto a tiny fraction of my post, probably the all-too-easy insults, and then respond ONLY to that, completely sidesteping any real engagement with the post . . . -it would be infuriating except it is just too common-
You mark my words; even with this pointing out of his tactics, he will still do it!
Originally posted by bunge
I do care if there's a Senate rule he breaks. Did he? Some people weren't sure.
I believe that the rules against profanity only apply when the Senate is in session.
Nick
Originally posted by midwinter
I believe that the rules against profanity only apply when the Senate is in session.
Shhhh... I already mentioned that to him. I also mentioned the whole standing on the "floor" versus having the "floor" to speak. Giving him information like this is apparently "ignoring" him.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
My ignore file is growing. Pfflam has just been added. Now I can stop wasting my time with all these unemployed lifeless people who enjoy attempting to make others miseable.
Nick
desperate now aren't we . . .
and guess what people . . . notice how he did EXACTLY what I said that he would do
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Do I believe homosexuality is a choice? Yes I do. I've not read any studies that prove to me otherwise. The claim that no one would choose it as a lifestyle so it must be genetic is unconvincing. I watch people consciously choose aspects of their lifestyle that are much worse than homosexuality and yet no one thinks them genetic, or if they do, they don't condone it.
Trumptman, you are drastically oversimplifying this, imposing a black and white stamp on a complex scenario with almost as many colors and shades as there are people. Human sexuality is not an either/or state: There are many folk who are predominantly straight, but occasionally have the very occasional same-sex experience. There are people who are predominantly gay who occasionally will have a "straight" encounter, once in a while, and there are some who swing both ways, in any number of proportions. If you are straight, do you choose to be straight, or were you born straight? An absurd question, yes...and equally ridiculous as positing that gay people choose that sexuality state.Similarly, do you reckon a left-hander chooses to be a left hander?
Here in Los Angeles, there is a huge gay community and I have met many gay people, both men and women. I have yet to meet anyone who is a fully confirmed gay who reckons that their sexuality is a conscious choice, as if they had an alternative. Many truly gay people become aware of something about themselves they don't quite understand, from very early childhood, a long time before they develop their secondary sexual characteristsics.
Social conservatives and the religious right maintain that homosexuality is a choice in order to justify their philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin". The pronouncement in Leviticus that "homosexuality is an abomination" is their great fallback, and it simplifies and encapsulates a complex situation, enabling religious fundies to assign guilt and pass judgement by rote without having to go to the inconvenience of thinking. I also find it not very surprising that the religious right chooses to enforce this particular example of Leviticus' admonitions, while roundly ignoring those that infringe on, for example, a popular culinary tradition. Leviticus cites that "the consumption of shellfish is an abomination". Perhaps it is relatively difficult to persecute or effectively dump guilt on the shrimp, whelk and mussel-eating sector of the population.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Trumptman, you are drastically oversimplifying this, imposing a black and white stamp on a complex scenario with almost as many colors and shades as there are people. Human sexuality is not an either/or state: There are many folk who are predominantly straight, but occasionally have the very occasional same-sex experience. There are people who are predominantly gay who occasionally will have a "straight" encounter, once in a while, and there are some who swing both ways, in any number of proportions. If you are straight, do you choose to be straight, or were you born straight? An absurd question, yes...and equally ridiculous as positing that gay people choose that sexuality state.Similarly, do you reckon a left-hander chooses to be a left hander?
Here in Los Angeles, there is a huge gay community and I have met many gay people, both men and women. I have yet to meet anyone who is a fully confirmed gay who reckons that their sexuality is a conscious choice, as if they had an alternative. Many truly gay people become aware of something about themselves they don't quite understand, from very early childhood, a long time before they develop their secondary sexual characteristsics.
Social conservatives and the religious right maintain that homosexuality is a choice in order to justify their philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin". The pronouncement in Leviticus that "homosexuality is an abomination" is their great fallback, and it simplifies and encapsulates a complex situation, enabling religious fundies to assign guilt and pass judgement by rote without having to go to the inconvenience of thinking. I also find it not very surprising that the religious right chooses to enforce this particular example of Leviticus' admonitions, while roundly ignoring those that infringe on, for example, a popular culinary tradition. Leviticus cites that "the consumption of shellfish is an abomination". Perhaps it is relatively difficult to persecute or effectively dump guilt on the shrimp, whelk and mussel-eating sector of the population.
Sammi,
Great post. So we don't get accused of trying to sidetrack the Cheney telling someone to fuck off thread, perhaps you could post it as a seperate topic. I know I've already been charged with that once simply by replying to others like yourself. I know you don't want to be part of the great conservative conspiracy to silence all those who wish to denounce people who curse. So please start a different thread.
Nick
He can't actually respond to a well argued thought about the issue of sexuality . . . he has made that clear
well . . . since he happily has me on ignore I'll talk about that issue to others.
IMO, it is hard to believe that there still exists supposedly intelligent people who question the notion that our sexual preferences are simply a matter of choice . . . .
repressed homosexuality does exist: someone who has made a barely unconsciouse choice to deny their real desires . . . it is a choice to deny one's real proclivities. In many psychological theories about this, those who deny to themselves their own proclivities the pressure of the denied urge returns in dangerous forms . . . paranoia, and egotistic power-tripping, and, particularly, an inordinant amount of focus on injustice done to the male sex by women, a burried misogyny, particularly with and through projected authority figures/father-images, such as judges or even in more abstracted form, through the legal system, seem to point to thiskind of repressed homosexuality.
It is odd that repressed homosexuality is unconsciouse but shows itself in its 'denied' form, through strict authoritarianism and hatred of women, at least in some psychological models . . .
just my 2cents