Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:16:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
303 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> the following is a question and answer excerpt from a debate on another
website.
'Cause we just don't have enough trouble of our own? ;-)
> The questions seem to me very clear and logical.
How can a question be logical or not?
> The answers, however, do not; sometimes they seem rather desperate.
I think you are looking through a tinted lense. It seems like a pretty
evenhanded treatment to me.
> Also, futher down, he states that he will not argue hypothetical questions,
> yet clings to gay by birth, an unproven theory.
You and this hound person (or is that you?) repeat the fact that the gay gene
is an uproven theory as if it reduces the credibility of the idea. It does
not. All theories are unproven. The question is whether or not there is
support for the notion. And I'm not willing to speculate because I haven't
read whatever studies exist.
I have a close friend who is a transsexual. She was raised as a boy but never
felt right about it. When she had sexual fantasies (even during sex as a man)
she imagined herself as a woman. She spent a lot of time as a deviant and then
decided that she was actually a woman. She's had the operations and lives the
life of a woman. She is marrying another friend of mine this summer. I am
familiar with some transsexual research because of this association and they
are pretty clearly finding through postmortem analysis of the brain, that
transsexuals have brain structures that resemble the sex that they identified
with, not the sex that they were raised with, or that their sex genes suggest.
It came up in coversation only, I have no cites, that similar studies showed
differences in the brains of homosexual men. If that is so, then what makes it
so hard to buy into "gay by birth?" It needn't even _be_ a genetic thing for
it to still be physiological.
But for all that, aside from pure science curiosity, who cares if it's a choice
or not? It doesn't affect my one bit where you prefer put your dick.
> For those who may be quick to judge, I am not anti-gay.
>
> I believe people choose their sexual orientation.
Based on what? Could you choose to be gay?
Not me -- I've tried. I decided at one point that my sexual aversion to men
was a result of silly societal conditioning and started trying to convince
myself that I was attracted to men. But I couldn't do it. It just didn't
work.
> Several gay participants of the debate adamantly refused to accept that I
> could be anything but anti-gay.
Well, your unwillingness to consider one theory does seem a bit odd.
> Does the gay community have a language of its own and only respects people
> who use it?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ • --
>
> Not exactly.
But sort of. Just like every community. Talk to your teenager for proof.
> 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
That's an understandable stance given their persecution, but a dumb reason to
reject a theory.
> 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.
That's because there's no logic in the assertion. First of all, gay people are
protected by the constitution just like straight people are. Second, the
constitution does not specifically enumerate the right to choose to be gay.
And the gay side of this argument doesn't seem to be "adamantly adhereing" to
their side of things any more than the straight participants. And this isn't
about what "fight" is worthwhile, it's about truth and acceptance.
> Gay at birth simply goes against nature, a species cannot thrive without
> procreation of opposite sexes.
Not at all. In rats, hormonal changes in utero change the fecundity of the
adults born into overcrowded situations. There is all kind of biological
impetus to produce homosexuality as population density increases. I am wildly
hypothesizing here, but it _could_ be. And if I can point to even _one_ (which
I just did) plausible reason for the "natural" occurance of homosexuality then
this whole 'homos are going against nature' train is derailed...as it should
be.
> 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?
Of course he would continue to live gay as long as that's what felt right.
Such a set of findings would only indicate that it is more complicated than a
strinctly simple genetic relationship. Most things that are demonstrably
genetic involve several genes, not just one. And I'm sure that
psychological issues aren't only genetic.
The more we know about our genetic predispositions, the more we can understand
our urges and decide whether or not following them is the best choice. Knowing
what they are and where they come from _does not_ mean that we are somehow
supposed to obey them. That way leads to darkness.
> ... If the gay gene is found and people are tested and filed at
> birth, would that be ok with the gay community?
Of course not. That wouldn't be "ok" with any good person, much less those who
would be victimized by it.
> Is it "anti-gay" to disbelieve the gay-at-birth theory?
No. It is anti-intellectual. It is hiding in the crevaces of your irrational
fears instead of shining a light and exploring them to find that there are no
bogeymen. When we have evidence to either support or refute the notion, then
make a decision. Until then, you can't.
> It is just a theory until proven otherwise.
Just like gravity!
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: **snip of lots of sensible things** I hate to post a "me too," but Chris and I are so seldom in 100% agreement that I thought it was worth mentioning. Bravo to you, Chris, for a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Gotta agree with Chris - the desperation seems a bit more on the other side. (...) A propensity for "gayness" may be in someone's gene, it may not. I don't discount it, but I don't accept it out of hand, either. I've been more of the opinion (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| This seems like as good a place as any to jump in. The research i've done shows that a gay scientist found evidence of a gay gene, but no one has been able to duplicate his results. In scientific research, that is a very serious thing. It may have (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
