Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:01:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
257 times
|
| |
|
|
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 results are here:
http://www.channel4.com/gaycensus/index.html
Where nature/nurture is concerned it makes these comments: "More men believe
they were 'born gay' than suddenly felt compelled to wear pink. Most
lesbians however, believe they chose to be lesbian, or cite a combination of
nature and nurture from social pressures." Further details:
http://www.channel4.com/gaycensus/g_nature.html
I advise all homophobes to take the "Gay-O-Meter" test, and tell us the
results:
http://www.channel4.com/plus/metrosexuality/
I shall tell you all my results once I have spoken to my wife. and my mum.
Scott A
"Kirby Warden" <inourimage@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Gnr3qq.IIy@lugnet.com...
> 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 4 Replies:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
| (...) assumptions (IE 'are you still beating your wife' type questions)... and given that you HAD to answer ALL the questions, it was rather tricky to figure out what the heck to answer. Would I rather be/meet my favorite footballer? (I don't have a (...) (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
|
|
|
|
