Subject:
|
gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 04:42:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
225 times
|
| |
|
|
the following is a question and answer excerpt from a debate on another website.
The questions seem to me very clear and logical.
The answers, however, do not; sometimes they seem rather desperate. I find
it very interesting that the person answering these questions uses religion
as a scapegoat for why the gay community chooses birth rather than choice.
Also, futher down, he states that he will not argue hypothetical questions,
yet clings to gay by birth, an unproven theory.
A simple news search will show several references to articles about the gay
gene. A scientist, Dr.Hamer who is gay, claims to have proven the existence
of a gay gene in chromosone X28, yet his results could not be duplicated by
later researchers.
For those who may be quick to judge, I am not anti-gay.
I believe people choose their sexual orientation.
Several gay participants of the debate adamantly refused to accept that I
could be anything but anti-gay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hound:
Does the gay community have a language of its own and only respects people
who use it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not exactly. What I was referring to when I spoke of "language" was:
There are simply some terms we prefer used towards us, and others that we
dislike or find offensive. There are all kinds of names that we can be
called, ranging from the derogatory type to the misunderstanding type to the
type we prefer.
This happens in every group of people who have something in common. If you
belonged to a particular group, and if someone who did NOT belong to that
particular group were talking to you, would you prefer to be called:
"Disabled" or "a cripple"?
"African American" or the N-word?
"Woman" or the B-word?
That's what I mean when I talk about the type of language being used.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hound:
Is the gay community really so against the idea of choosing ones sexual
orientation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I just know this is going to set off a whole new line of arguments, but...)
Yes, most of us are, primarily because that concept is used by religious
ultra-conservatives to:
1) Deride the way that we are
2) Label us as "sinners"
3) Try to pass legislation to further limit our rights (relative to those of
straight people)
4) Try to prevent the passing of legislation that would allow us rights
equal to those of straight people
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hound:
What is to be gained by adamantly adhereing to the idea of gay at birth
rather than gay by choice? It seems to me that gay by choice is a far more
courageous and worthwhile fight, the constitution is on your side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is the Constitution "on our side" if we are gay by choice, but NOT if we
are gay by birth? I don't follow your logic here.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hound:
Gay at birth simply goes against nature, a species cannot thrive without
procreation of opposite sexes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm finished arguing with you on this point. If you don't see the logic in
Cliffy's post about this early on in this thread, then there's really no
where else for us to go with this other than "Yes, it is! No, it isn't!"
(Added later):
And LGBT people are not a different species from straight people. We're all
H-omo sapiens sapiens. (How ironic is that? I had to add the hyphen in
"H-omo" to keep the species name from getting censored by the BB. ) Just
like humans who are right-handed are the same species as those who are
left-handed. See http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/traittab.htm for more
on that.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hound:
What if the gay gene is someday found? What if you have yourself tested for
it and the results are negative. Would you change your lifestyle to support
"who you are" or would you accept the label of "deviant" and continue to
live gay? ... If the gay gene is found and people are tested and filed at
birth, would that be ok with the gay community? Do you know some of the
possible repercussions of that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will not be drawn into an argument based purely on hypothetical situations
that (by definition) may or may not ever happen. It's a waste of time.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hound:
Is it "anti-gay" to disbelieve the gay-at-birth theory? It is just a theory
until proven otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anti-gay"? Maybe, maybe not. "Anti-what-almost-everyone-who's-LGBT-thinks"?
Definitely.
|
|
Message has 11 Replies:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) I would not necessarily assume you were anti-gay, although I might assume your stance is based primarily on belief rather than logic. (...) Well, here's the thing that gets me. I've never seen anyone give a convincing reason why anyone would (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
| What does it really matter? If people are happy that is a good thing. There was recently a "gay census" in the UK. It has been criticised for focusing on people who are "out", but it is still the most detailed revue of gay life in the UK. The main (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) website. 'Cause we just don't have enough trouble of our own? ;-) (...) How can a question be logical or not? (...) I think you are looking through a tinted lense. It seems like a pretty evenhanded treatment to me. (...) You and this hound (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| As Chris alluded to, homosexuality falls under the realm of behavioral genetics and is probably an epigenetic process (e.g. acting above the level of the genes). Epigenetic processes are incredibally difficult to tease apart and complex ones such as (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| As far as i am concerned, the whole deate is moot. Not only that, but it is dangerous because of its potential impact on society. Also, the way the various quotes describe homosexuality leave the issue somewhat clouded. As i see it: - (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| in article Gns8LM.n0v@lugnet.com, Kirby Warden at inourimage@msn.com wrote on 12/3/01 1:24 PM: (...) Why? If it were to be proven that the tendency to commit adultery or fornication were genetically programmed (not that hard to imagine, really), (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| in article Gns8LM.n0v@lugnet.com, Kirby Warden at inourimage@msn.com wrote on 12/3/01 1:24 PM: (...) A ridiculous notion. If you are straight, are you straight "by choice?" Do you somehow feel you would be or are free to choose otherwise? And why (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| in article GnszKI.5KJ@lugnet.com, Ross Crawford at rcrawford@csi.com wrote on 12/3/01 11:07 PM: (...) Please, can't you think any better than that? It is the FACT that heteros find the opposite sex attractive that MAKES us heteros, not some "choice" (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| in article Gntz4y.IMp@lugnet.com, David Eaton at deaton@intdata.com wrote on 12/4/01 11:55 AM: (...) Sorry; I didn't read your too well, and I shouldn't have shot me mouth off. I suspect the attraction is largely chemical/hormonal, and that is (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
