Question: Why is homosexuality considered to be Genes vs Choice

[cuke]

when every similar discussion/debate is one of "Genes vs Environment"?

And why do "we" just let this slide by? I've never heard anyone object to the question.

[More Than A Feeling]

1. Ask the fundies, They think its a "free will choice" to "rebel" against god.

They aren't interested in an explanation if they can't use it to cast gays/lesbians as immoral.

[IndianaJones]

2. yeah...its all the fundies. nt.

[demigoddess]

3. there was this documentary on tv back in the seventies and they interviewed

several gay couples, one who had been together about 50 years down to one couple who had been together a few months. One thing that came up with the older couples was that they were usually raised on farms in bible belt country and had never heard of homosexuality but the grew up from a young age thinking something was different about themselves, then in teens or twenties would have a moment of enlightenment when they would fall in love with someone or move to the big city and meet other gay people. They had always known they were different just did not know in what way. That more than any thing said by a scientist convinced me it was probably an inborn situation. If a gay person says different, I will listen.

In the eighties and there were AIDS babies in hospitals and even nurses would not want to touch them, it was gay men who came forward and said 'we will take them home and love them'. That was it for me. I'm on their side. I support gay marriage and all that goes with it.

All you newbies born in the eighties and ninties missed a few things along the way or you would not be arguing about these trivialities.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. Considering that Homosexuality has been around as long as...

modern man has, I do not find it to be a product of Environmental effects, it is Genetic and I would think that it is a Evolutionary development of mutated Genes. It does not make it bad, but it does make it a natural change rather then on due to porography and other so-called socital attributes.

[tekisui]

5. I don't understand why it matters.

Genes or Choice or Environment? What difference does it make why someone loves who they do? I don't care why, I just don't want to see anyone discriminated against because of who they love.

[cuke]

8. Ask yourself, what's the difference between "Choice" and "Environment"?

IMO, choice involves morality while environment does not. After all, we do not choose the environment we are born into and, as a child, we have little power to change it.

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Fundies can still use environment to make fundy parents even more

hysterical about enforcing gender roles.

[tekisui]

15. Ask yourself, why does it matter?

Choice only involves morality if you believe homosexuality to be morally "wrong". And, people of all sexual preferences are born into all environments.

All that matters is that every person's individual rights are protected.

[cuke]

18. Personally speaking, I agree

It doesn't matter how we acquire our sexual orientation. We all are entitled to equal rights.

But that doesn't address the question I was asking. Obviously, the word "choice" is important as demonstrated by the fact that they substituted the word "choice" for the word "environment". My question is why (which you address somewhat by implying their desire to label gay sex as immoral) they use the word "choice" and why we don't challenge that fallacious dichotomy

[AuntPatsy]

14. I like your response. Simple and makes a more than valid point.

[Occulus]

71. It matters a very great deal, actually.

If it isn't a choice, the entire religion-based opposition to homosexuality- all of it- instantly become invalid. That's why you see so many religions and sects within religions (abrahamics, I'm glaring at you, here) insisting it's a choice.

If it's not, they have a huge amount of actual monetary reparations to give forth, and they bloody well know it.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. I had a ton of poo thrown at me for making a similar statement. Bottom line, I agree. It shouldn't.

It shouldn't matter. I understand why it does, in some contexts, but when all is said and done it shouldn't make one fucking whit of a difference. If it was a choice, would that mean gays shouldn't have equal rights?

Choice, Genes, Shmoice, Beans. What consenting adults do, who they choose to love, isn't anyone else's fucking business as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. Everyone deserves equal rights, including the right to marry the person they love. If fundy shitwads care whether it's a "choice" or not because saying it's a "choice" makes it easier for them to convince themselves that "god" says it's okay to hate those folks, too bad.

They should grow the fuck up, deal with it, and get out of other peoples' pants.

[peacebird]

6. for me it's like "intelligent design" vs evolution... those who tout "intelligent" design

are obviously so delusional that they aren't worth the time to debate.

Perhaps it is time to point out the flaws in their "logic" anyhow?

[KittyWampus]

63. Intelligent design doesn't dispute evolution.

It challenges the Reductionist THEORY of evolution.

[Zhade]

65. It also has zero, zip, zilch, none, less than any, supporting evidence.

It's a fairy tale, nothing more (pun not intended).

[Hoof Hearted]

97. And what of those who do not see any conflict or challenge at all between the two?

One can be a scholar and enthusiast of science and still believe in a greater perfection. I constantly wonder at the symmetrical beauty of science from the periodic table to the speed of light to the formations of clouds and galaxies.

I LOVE science, and I feel no conflict or disconnect between that learned and learning process, and my spiritual beliefs.

[cuke]

7. Just to be clear - I'm not asking if you think it's genes or choice

I'm asking why the question is worded this way when it's usually framed as "Nature (Genes) vs Nurture (Environment)

[tammywammy]

11. I think the phrase

"nature vs nurture" just goes over the heads of some people, that the "choice" argument holds with.

Regarding nature vs nurture, there was the case of David Reamer concerning sexuality. Have you read about him? There's a very good book, that basically debunks the whole "nurture" argument of sexuality.

As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl by John Colapinto

http://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0060929596/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-2047597-8492410?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194397556&sr=8-1

[cuke]

13. I didn't recognize it until I read the title

Fascinating book. IMO, it doesn't prove that it's genes, but it does make it clear that it's not a choice.

As far as it going over people's heads, I'm not sure I buy your theory because there are many other similar debates and it's always Nature vs Nurture. IMO, it's a pretty old debate (preceding the discovery of genes when "blood" was considered the cause) and shouldn't be unfamiliar to most

IMO, it's because the right wing wants to frame it as an immoral "choice". "Environment" implies no moral failing or success whereas "Choice" implies a deliberate and knowing decision. Choice means the person doing the choosing can be blamed for their choice

[tammywammy]

19. Yeah, I see that as well

If they can say it's a choice, then they can continue on with the whole "it's a sin" blah blah blah.

I do find it interesting that the terms "choice" and "genes" has taken hold of this issues, just like the word "life" & "pro-choice"

I recommended that book to a friend of my while she was in medical school (for pediatrics), and she in turn recommended it to a bunch of her fellow students. The funny thing, is that book was my grandmothers. We found it after she had died. Then my aunt read it and gave it to me. I never would have expected my grandmother to read something like it.

[cuke]

22. Them old folks can be pretty hip when you're not looking

I've been getting to know some older folks lately and I've been pleasantly surprised at how "with it" so many are. Maybe it was prejudice on my part, but I was truly surprised at their radicalism and political involvement

Getting back to the topic: Yes, it's just like the "pro-life" framing thing. And yet, the pro-life bs does get noticed while this "Choice" bs seems to go right over people's head.

[tammywammy]

26. Over some heads, I agree

But really, I think it's like the life/pro-choice, the terms will eventually change i.e. "pro-abortion" vs "anti-choice."

I'll be interested to see what happens in the next 5-10 years on this wording.

[jgraz]

9. Why do we even put up with the question??

Engaging in a choice vs genes debate plays into the fundies' hands. The right response -- choice or not -- is "get your sick fascist nose out of my private life you inbred moron."

[Az]

12. Because it is a case where we can hit the authoratative dogma over the head with facts

The premise from the right is that homosexuality is unnatural. Because it is unnatural it is obscene. A perversion of nature. When the simple truth is that homosexuality is quite common in nature. It clearly is demonstrable that the right's position is wrong.

Further scientific studies continue to confirm this. We are finding that sexual identity has to qualities to it. We have a fixed general sense of attraction. That is we all exist somewhere along a spectrum determining which gender we are attracted to. This is hardwired into our brain. In addition to this position we each have a variable degree of flexibility. These two traits combine to form our sexual identity. Who and what we are attracted to and how flexible we are in our attraction.

The simple fact is who we are attracted to is not a choice. A moments reflection will reveal this. We do not walk up and choose to find some woman's rack attractive or some guys package alluring. Our conscious mind is struck by the fact that our attention is suddenly riveted to certain individuals. It is beyond our control. We can force ourselves to avoid focusing on the things we are attracted to. But we cannot force our minds to not be attracted to them.

[cuke]

16. Agree, but why is the question framed as one of "Genes vs Choice"

instead of "Genes vs Environment" as it usually is? And why do we accept that framing?

[Az]

21. Well its not really genes and the fight is not only political

We do not have a direct genetic link to homosexuality yet. But it is a neurological issue instead of a nurture issue. The brain is wired to be attracted to whatever it is wired for.

As to the framing... I suspect it has more to do with the issues homosexuals have to deal with in day to day life rather than the political ramifications of the matter. For them it is an all day every day sort of issue. Not just one for the ballot box. Their defense of their position is often waged from within subcultures that posses taboos against homosexuality for religious or dogmatic reasons. And in these cases they must counter with whatever tools they have. And science is a very effective tool to push back the claims of it being an abomination or unnatural.

So when the issue comes to a political front the battle simply carries over. The same arguments used to justify themselves in their social settings are brought forth in the political arena. Strategies and arguments that work in social settings can be just as effective in political settings.

A further observation is that just because we argue for freedom of choice on other matters does not mean that these arguments are effective at driving back the opposition. Sometimes you have to directly impale the supposed moral argument of the opposition to disable their case. And in the case of homosexuality a very compelling argument can be made that it is simply natural.

[cuke]

24. That's a very interesting take on it

that hadn't occurred to me. I can't say I agree with it, but you've given me something to think about and it is along the lines of what I've been theorizing about. My theory is that it's a reactionary response (sort of like the way a habit carries over into other aspects of ones life, as you described) Thanks for that.

[Zhade]

64. Not quite accurate...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102501861.html

THURSDAY, Oct. 25 (HealthDay News) -- Sexual attraction is hard-wired into the brains of small worms called nematodes, say scientists who genetically manipulated some of the creatures to make them attracted to the same sex.

The finding might give some insight into sexual attraction generally, the researchers said.

"Our conclusions are narrow in that they are about worms and how attraction behaviors are derived from the same brain circuit. But an evolutionary biologist will consider this to be a potentially common mechanism for sexual attraction," biology professor Erik Jorgensen, scientific director of the Brain Institute at the University of Utah, said in a prepared statement.

"The conclusion is that sexual attraction is wired into brain circuits common to both sexes of worms and is not caused solely by extra nerve cells added to the male or female brain," he said. "The reason males and females behave differently is that the same nerve cells have been rewired to alter sexual preference."

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. Because environment doesn't equal choice.

People who grow up in a violent and abusive household are much more likely to be violent and abusive.

That's called environmental influence, as you know I'm sure. Now, those people have a choice to get help and address the influence of their past environment to create violent tendencies, but that doesn't mean it was their choice to become violent.

My belief regarding homosexuality is that it's a combination of genes and environment.

Some people are gay because they were just born that way. Others had some environmental influences during their formative years (ex sexual abuse) that have made them gay.

Unlike violent tendencies, it's clear that once sexual orientation is established it's not changeble.

[cuke]

20. Thank you

Yes, environment doesn't necesarily have an element of choice (personal responsibility) which is why I believe the question is framed as Genes vs Choice. So why do you think we just accept this false dichotomy without complaint? I see that even in this thread, people dont understand the question even though it's quite clear in the OP (at least IMO). It's as if it's a question that can't be comprehended by some

[Lex]

23. Are there studies linking sexual abuse with "development" of homosexuality?

Link?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lex]

29. It is NOT common knowledge. Can sexual abuse cause one to be straight?

Well? If a lesbian is abused by a man can it cause her to be straight?

Can it?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lex]

36. Uh-huh. And I think your "common knowledge"

is quaint.

[NMMNG]

37. Cite some real facts

Not just this BS "common knowledge" garbage. Right now all you're doing is spewing RRRW talking points.

[Solon]

56. Can I just say you are dumb?

Unless the victim in question was abused in the womb, there are no "formative years" in developing sexual orientation. Children may not develop sexual attraction at young ages, however, that's more about hormonal levels, not orientation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

60. No.

"Formative years" I refer to are pre-pubescent.

[Solon]

62. See, this is what makes your statements dumb...

You are confusing behavior with orientation. Orientation is defined by who you are attracted to. As far as the best scientific data can determine, your orientation is set by the time you are born. Getting molested as a child can be psychologically damaging, but it doesn't change your fundamental orientation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

68. Ok, now it's your turn. What "scientific data" supports that orientation is set before birth? n/t

[Solon]

73. Is the American Psychological Association a good source?

Granted, its a FAQ, but it should answer some of your questions. Notice the mention of newer evidence about biology, inborn hormonal levels, and possibly genetics playing a role.

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

[Harper_is_Bush]

78. "scientists today agree that sexual orientation ... result of a complex interaction of environmental

"Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors."

from your source.

[Solon]

80. Doesn't mention age, which is key here...

As far as they can tell, you can't change your orientation, period, regardless of what experiences you have had, even during the "formative" years.

[Harper_is_Bush]

84. No, that's not what it says.

It mentions "environment" as being a possible factor, so that means experiences.

[Solon]

87. "Enviroment" is a VERY general term...

and can include everything from what foods your mother ate when she was pregnant to what chemicals you are exposed to as a newborn. The fact of the matter is that orientation is out of your conscious control, you cannot choose an orientation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

89. Agreed that it's not a choice.

[Zhade]

67. That's not causative data. You're just making shit up.

NT!

[LostinVA]

106. Your sexual orientation is hard wired into you

There ARE no "formative years."

I disagree with Lex on this one: it isn't quaint.

[NMMNG]

30. And what about the kids who were sexually abused

And didn't turn out gay?




This "sexual abuse turns kids gay" is RW propaganda.

[Lex]

31. I can't believe what I see here sometimes.

Honestly.

[NMMNG]

34. Me either

:eyes:

[Harper_is_Bush]

44. me three

:toast:

[Harper_is_Bush]

38. What about them?

I didn't say it was a direct cause-effect that applied to all cases, did I?

[Toasterlad]

43. It Is FAULTY Knowledge.

There is no credible evidence that sexual abuse can cause a shift in sexual orientation. It is a myth that has been widely propagated and has zero basis in fact.

A more likely scenario is that the priest who abused your friend's brother realized the boy was gay and therefore "vulnerable". That is a common occurence with pedophiles. But in no way did the priest "cause" your friend's brother's gayness.

Also, you can't catch "gay" from watching two men kiss. :eyes:

[Harper_is_Bush]

46. If your theory is true, then that would explain the increased level of homosexuality among abused.

which was the "common knowledge" I referred to.

[Toasterlad]

50. I'm Telling You That Your Belief is False.

There is no "increased level of homosexuality among the abused". If you really believe there is, do some research to find it. At least that way, you'll educate yourself.

[Harper_is_Bush]

52. But you said a likely scenario is that pedophiles might target gays, did you not?

You offered that as an explanation for why a higher percentage of boys abused by men turn out to be gay than the general population.

I'm unsure about your theory, because I'm not sure that the sexual orientation of a pre-pubescent boy would be apparent to an abuser. Maybe it is though, I'm without insight on that.

[Toasterlad]

53. I Offered That Scenario As An Explanation for What Happened to Your Friend's Brother.

I said it was common for pedophiles who prey on boys to pick effeminate boys. But I did NOT say that a higher percentage of boys abused by men turn out to be gay than the general population. And until you can offer valid statistics to back up your claim, YOU should not be saying it, either.

In no way can sexual abuse "make" someone gay.

[Harper_is_Bush]

54. Meh. You essentially are saying exactly what I've said.

In terms of results.

[Toasterlad]

55. I Most Certainly Am NOT.

YOU are saying that sexual abuse turns people gay. I am saying that's impossible.

You have yet to back up your "common knowledge" with any evidence.

[Harper_is_Bush]

59. You are saying the results are the same. The evidence is the same. n/t

[Zhade]

69. You have yet to cite ANY evidence, pal.

NT!

[Harper_is_Bush]

72. Evidence for what, pal? n/t

[Zhade]

81. Causation. You have thus far failed to cite any evidence for it.

NT!

[Harper_is_Bush]

85. See post 78 n/t

[Withywindle]

61. Cause and effect.

I'm unsure about your theory, because I'm not sure that the sexual orientation of a pre-pubescent boy would be apparent to an abuser.

Surely you've noticed that predators tend to prey on the vulnerable. And that very often, molestation is a crime of opportunity often committed by clergy, teachers, counselors and other people that children are conditioned to trust.

Well, as for pre-pubescent children, surely you've heard of kissing games and playing doctor and teasing each other about boyfriends and girlfriends, and playing house and who gets to be "Daddy" and "Mommy", and little girls dreaming about the handsome prince in the Disney movies, etcetera etcetera. This is precisely the stage when queer children are beginning to realize there's something different about them, though they don't understand it yet. It frightens them, it alienates them from their peers and likely, from their families. It makes them particularly vulnerable to a predator who might "groom" them by appearing to take them under their wing and be sympathetic.

Do I have to draw you a picture?

In a homophobic society, being queer makes one alienated and vulnerable. Being a child who can't articulate this and very likely has no source of GOOD information and support on the matter makes that situation even worse. It makes you prey. Especially if you have a "shameful" secret and feel you owe something to the "understanding" adult--maybe even keeping their "little secret."

[Harper_is_Bush]

70. Yeah, draw me a picture.

Or, save your sarcasm and realize the picture you're drawing explains why a greater percentage of abused boys turn out to be gay.

[Withywindle]

74. The boys were ALREADY gay.

Because they were BORN THAT WAY.

They are starting to realize this in a vague way, and they are SCARED and LONELY. Our culture has a pretty warped idea of "innocence" so can't possibly bring themselves to explain matters to a child who might be questioning their orientation in a simple, straightforward way, so the poor kid is flailing all alone with no clue of why he's "different" and feels that no one in the world understands him.

Get it? So predator picks up on this--because that's what predators do, extremely well: sniff out vulnerabilities.

The molestation didn't MAKE them gay. It only dumped another load of emotional shame and bullshit to deal with on them.

[Harper_is_Bush]

76. And AGAIN, your theory jives perfectly with everyting I've said.

Get it? If not, read again.

[Withywindle]

79. Well, I know several STRAIGHT guys who were

molested by men as children too. And one or two who were molested by women. It had no effect on their orientation, because that was already fixed. There's no reason to think it's any different for gay people, is there?

I also know plenty of gay and lesbian people who were never molested by anyone.

I am not sure at all that it's true that a higher percentage of gay and lesbian people were molested as children than straight people. I don't think there's any direct correlation whatsoever. But in the cases of queer folks who were, the orientation came BEFORE the molestation, same as for straight people.

[Harper_is_Bush]

86. Although interesting, your (and my) anecdotes mean little.

Expecially considering that nobody has claimed that ALL boys abused by men would be gay.

[Withywindle]

88. But this "common knowledge" you offered up

that a greater percentage of gay people than straights were molested is just a pile of anecdotes too. There still isn't any actual DATA about that anywhere on this thread. It IS a well-known popular myth and stereotype, though. Downright tired, in fact. Never mind that it very possibly isn't true.

[Harper_is_Bush]

90. I never said any such thing

Please watch your comments. Thx.

[Solon]

91. So you deny you posted post 32? n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

94. No, I don't

I say that you're wrong.

You say I said:

that a greater percentage of gay people than straights were molested

in truth I said:

the percentile of homosexuals among boys abused by men is higher than the general population


Can you see the difference? If not, keep trying. Ask a friend to help you.

[Solon]

96. You also claimed its "common knowledge...

name a cite from a reputable organization. Put up or shut up.

[Withywindle]

92. Oh, come on.

You started off with this: "Others had some environmental influences during their formative years (ex sexual abuse) that have made them gay."

When Lex asked "Are there studies linking sexual abuse with "development" of homosexuality?", the heading of your reply was "No, but it's pretty common knowledge." Then you offered up an anecdote. And said you'd heard the same anecdote very often. As backup for this "pretty common knowledge."

We're all reading the whole thread here, you know.

[Zhade]

66. Offensive homophobic bullshit.

NT!

[LostinVA]

105. If a lesbian is raped by a man, does she become straight?

*crickets*

[cuke]

28. Not that I know of

There used to be psychiatric theories about how an overprotective mother and an absent father can cause a child to grow up to be homosexual, but I haven't heard anyone actually say that seriously since the 1960's

I have read speculation that the environment inside the womb might influence a child's sexual development and orientation.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

51. A Lesbian Is Not a Woman With an Aversion to Men.

A lesbian is a woman who is sexually oriented towards other women.

If you believe that people are born gay, why are you agreeing with the idea that sexual abuse can "turn" someone gay?

I don't think you understand "gay" as much as you think you do.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

102. Oh brother -- that reads like an afterschool special of bad lesbian stereotypes

"Rachel was a man in a womans body from birth."

Really? So you know Rachel isn't a lesbian then, she's transgendered, and if she was transgendered, she probably wouldn't be calling herself Rachel.

I don't have time to break down the rest of your laughable selection of lesbian "friends."

[Withywindle]

58. Well, that just makes no sense at all.

If a girl is molested by a man she could develop a sexual aversion to men...OK, that's true, though that aversion alone won't make her a lesbian-- what makes a lesbian is ATTRACTION to WOMEN, not aversion to men. So if a boy is molested by a man, wouldn't he develop a sexual aversion to men as well? Were all straight boys molested by women and that's how they got to be straight, because they enjoyed it? Or were they ALL molested by men and that's why they can only enjoy sex with women?

Wait, whaaaaat? I'm so confused.

[Az]

25. re environment

People have a degree of flexibility regarding their sexuality. But they are relatively fixed on where upon the scale of gender attraction they fall. So someone that is emotionally pushed enough to shift from one side to the other as it were was probably already more close to the middle. Many people are predominantly bisexual but due to social stigma choose to act on only the impulses that society condones. An emotional shove can send them to the other side.

[Harper_is_Bush]

39. yes. That's why the genes/environment combination occurs, imo. n/t

[Solon]

95. That doesn't change their orientation, a bisexual is a bisexual...

regardless as to what actions they actually take. A bisexual man may marry a woman, happily, for the rest of his life, and even remain loyal, but his eyes may wonder to some other men while walking down the street.

[Az]

98. Well it can get a bit tricky

What a person declares themselves to be and what they really react to can be quite different things. So called recovered homosexuals insist they are no longer attracted to the same sex. But I wonder how they would fair hooked up to a brain scanner and shown various pictures.

And as to bisexuals, due to their inherent flexibility the question of what they consider themselves becomes dependent on their emotional opinion of the matter as well. A bisexual emotionally scared by one particular gender may associate exclusively with the other gender and reject any aspect of themselves that is attracted to the opposite.

[Solon]

109. That's the reason why self-identification is unreliable...

One of the major criticisms of conversion therapy is that they discount bisexuals entirely. A bisexual who is "scared straight" will most likely identify as straight, even though they would still have a sexual attraction to the same sex, but will deny it. The hardest thing a person can do is be honest with themselves.

[fizzgig]

99. and even remain loyal?

loyalty and fidelity have nothing to do with sexual orientation. being bisexual does not make you more likely to cheat.

[Az]

108. OT Fizzgig and Mononokies

I was originally going to just comment that I loved your Fizzgig but then I noticed the mononokie sitting there and had to comment on it as well. Fine choice of movies represented there.

[Danger Mouse]

100. Sexual abuse 'makes' people gay?

...
What a lovely point of view.

[LostinVA]

103. Duh -- it's "common knowledge"

Not that he said that or anything.

:eyes:

[Danger Mouse]

110. "Common knowledge" among fundies and freepers.

So I've heard.

[LostinVA]

104. No, being gay is not even partially because of environment

"Gay behavior" may be, but NOT your sexual orientation. EVER.

UGH. I'm sick of reading this stuff on DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[Basileus Basileon]

33. Because you can't blame someone for the environment they grew up in.

You can blame them for making "bad choices."

[cuke]

40. Thank you

So on to the next question: Why do we just accept this false framing?

[Basileus Basileon]

42. Because we're pretty damn predictable.

They say something outrageous--say, that gay marriage is like a man getting married to a vacuum cleaner--and sneak in that choice-v-genes business. We get so upset about the outrageous statement that we don't challenge the subtle bit of framing in there. In fact, in our urge to charge the red flag they're waving for us, we happen to grab anything we can find to use against them.

We see them say "It's a choice, not genetic." So we immediately think, "No, they're wrong. It's genetic, not a choice." And we say that. And then we move back to the waving red flag, and we've just helped establish the choice-genes dichotomy.

Bam. They win.

[cuke]

45. My thinking is along the lines of yours

It's basically reactionary. It's the result of an emotional reaction that clouds one's ability to use logic and reason. As you say, they get so offended by the question that they just react and respond, and as you say "Bam. They win"

[leeroysphitz]

35. Just my two cents but I see no difference...

If every scientist in the world jumped up tomorrow with irrefutable "proof" that homosexuality was a "choice" I would still demand total equality for glbt men and women on every front including marriage.

I see the need to frame the debate in a certain way since bigots don't let go of their bigotry unless and until they have no alternative.

[TZ]

41. actually every human behavior is

Genes AND environment, at least in the scientific community. The old nature vs. nuture debate is out moded. The people who are saying itas a choice tend not to be scientifically oriented types..fundies. I have met few biologists who don't think its genetic based by with environmental influences. Bottom line--its about bigotry and fear, not rationality when it comes to homosexual behavior (or yeah and that old chestnut about it being "unnatural" not at all true..you can find plenty of homosexual behavior in animals)

[iamjoy]

48. It's Actually A Combination Of Factors

In my opinion. I don't think it's as inherent and unchangeable as eye color, but to call it a choice oversimplifies matters.

My mother doesn't like peas. Is that genetic? Is it a choice? Is it environment because when she was growing up her mother forced her to eat them? She chooses not to eat them because if she did, she wouldn't enjoy it and would be unhappy.

Now of course, that's an oversimplification too, but in a small way it is accurate. I think our personal tastes, inclination and whole personality is a combination of factors.

All this trying to figure it out - what's the point? If scientists somehow proved it was a choice, would that make discrimination right? Environment, oh, let's blame the parents - too domineering a mother, too weak a father, no wonder the boy is gay. Abusive father, no wonder the girl hates men. Genetic - if they identify a "gay" gene should we develop gene therapy to alter it? Should they test for it in the womb like they do Down's Syndrome and give parents the option to abort (now there's a dilemma for a right-winger).

And I think like another post here mentioned, who cares the cause as long as we're talking about consenting adults why does it matter? You wouldn't pass a law that people who dyed their hair purple can't marry or adopt children because of the choice they made.

[UncleSepp]

49. Proof of homosexuality as genetic will NOT work

<opinion>

Science cannot dictate morality to religion any more than religion can dictate reality to science. These are not ideas that can be mixed, nor should they be.

The counterargument to homosexuality as inborn (and therefore moral) has already been established. It goes like this:
- Some people are born with gay inclinations
- Those people choose to either resist these inclinations, or succumb to them
- Those who succumb to them are morally weak; those who resist them are morally strong
- Continued legislation and social sanction against homosexuality is necessary to assist people born with a gay inclination to make the morally correct choice

Moreover, hanging the hopes of civil liberties for gay and lesbian people on a genetic cause argument may backfire seriously. It medicalizes homosexuality, which encourages medical cures and medical prevention.

<rant>

It is a fundamental principle of American thought that all people have the same inalienable human rights. American law has continued to perfect this principle, acknowledging and supporting the rights of people with land and without, women as well as men, people of color, and people of non-American origin. The special and limited rights of children have been recognized. Recognition of the equal rights of all people to participate fully in public and economic life, to marry the partner of their choice, and to build a family with the partner of their choice, regardless of gender of the individual or of the partner, is the beginning of the civil rights argument.

Individual liberty has been a fundamental characteristic of American identity since the Revolution. Individual liberty has also continued to grow as America has grown. Each of us has the freedom to act as we choose so long as our actions do not limit the freedoms of others, or cause harm to others. This principle as well, this principle of liberty, is the end of the civil rights argument.

It is not necessary to convince anyone that homosexuality is moral or normal. It is only necessary to convince a majority that human rights and individual liberty already belong as much to gay and lesbian Americans as to hetereosexual Americans.

Yes, this is radical. It is not for the squeamish or the shy. It is not for the insecure whose beliefs require constant confirmation from sympathetic neighbors, nor for the vain who need to see themselves reflected in all who pass by. This is fundamentalist Americanism, as nationalist as the Fourth of July. This is what we need to progress and to reclaim our country from the un-American opportunist bastards who perverted the people's revolution and who sold out the Constitution and democracy.

We are not engaged in a marketing campaign or a college debate. We are engaged in a battle for the spirit of America. It's time we acted like it.

</rant>
</opinion>

:-) YMMV. I state things strongly because I think it's fun, and that's how I think - not because I don't think there are other valid points of view.

[LeftyMom]

75. Does opposite sex sexual abuse make one straight?

It's bullshit to treat heterosexuality as the default and homosexuality as a deviation which must be explained and justified.

[libnnc]

83. Thank you.

:yourock:

[IndianaJones]

77. sense when do my pants have anything to do with it? nt.

[U4ikLefty]

93. Cause they get to "choose" what's in their partner's jeans...um, I mean "genes".

Okay it's a bad joke...and probably in bad taste. Forgive me, I've had 3 beers.

Guess it's time for bed.

[Neshanic]

101. Judging from some of the responses here, lets talk about heterosexual sex. When you screw your wife

or husband, do you like threesomes? Do you wear costumes? Do you role-play?

Really, us gays want to discus this frankly as this is something we gays want to know. Is it the environment that make you put on a costume to have sex with your hetrosexual partner? Was it an emotion issue when young that caused you to like blow jobs first, then sex later, or is that backwards?

See how highly disgusting it is to have your sex life discussed in a situation that is code and squats on the basline cause of being gay is well...kinda still debatable.

Lets hear you "straights" tell us gays all about you and how you love, have sex, what makes you love someone, and we could dissect it, and see how you all like it.

So who here's gonna start. Tell us all about what makes you straight, and then us gays will dissect it, and judge the various things you do, and what makes you do them.

All with an open mind of course.

[gollygee]

107. From this thread, I have learned the following:

1. If a girl is sexually abused by a man, she will be "made" a lesbian
2. If a boy is sexually abused by a man, he will be "made" gay (which would seem to contradict #1)
3. If a girl is sexually abused by a woman, she will be "made" a lesbian (which also seems to contradict #1)

:crazy:

No word on boys who are sexually abused by women.

It seems like people are saying that if you're GLBT, they will look for anything that has ever happened in your life to pin the "blame" for that on.

No word on people who are GLBT but were never abused and had happy childhoods.

Also, no word on straight people who were sexually abused as children.

:crazy: