HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why would a straight pers...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:55 AM

Why would a straight person chose to be anything other than straight?

I was just on a Facebook discussion where someone said being gay was a choice. I answered back by saying: As a straight person why would I chose to be anything other than straight? I have zero interest in men. I think the only way someone might logically come to the conclusion that it is a choice to be gay, is if they have some kind of attraction to both sexes.

99 replies, 6552 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 99 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why would a straight person chose to be anything other than straight? (Original post)
Quixote1818 Apr 2012 OP
Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #1
MineralMan Apr 2012 #2
Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #5
WingDinger Apr 2012 #24
Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #35
WingDinger Apr 2012 #38
Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #39
WingDinger Apr 2012 #41
Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #46
WingDinger Apr 2012 #48
Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #50
WingDinger Apr 2012 #52
TriMera Apr 2012 #54
WingDinger Apr 2012 #55
CJCRANE Apr 2012 #60
WingDinger Apr 2012 #62
MineralMan Apr 2012 #65
TriMera Apr 2012 #53
patrice Apr 2012 #78
yesphan Apr 2012 #3
Scuba Apr 2012 #4
Iggo Apr 2012 #49
Old and In the Way Apr 2012 #6
hifiguy Apr 2012 #92
lapislzi Apr 2012 #7
Puzzledtraveller Apr 2012 #27
lapislzi Apr 2012 #47
SwampG8r Apr 2012 #8
Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #18
loyalsister Apr 2012 #9
Arkana Apr 2012 #33
shcrane71 Apr 2012 #43
hedgehog Apr 2012 #10
Zorra Apr 2012 #11
Downwinder Apr 2012 #12
WingDinger Apr 2012 #13
TriMera Apr 2012 #20
WingDinger Apr 2012 #22
TriMera Apr 2012 #26
WingDinger Apr 2012 #29
TriMera Apr 2012 #36
LanternWaste Apr 2012 #56
WingDinger Apr 2012 #57
LanternWaste Apr 2012 #82
Arkana Apr 2012 #31
CJCRANE Apr 2012 #14
WingDinger Apr 2012 #15
CJCRANE Apr 2012 #16
WingDinger Apr 2012 #17
CJCRANE Apr 2012 #25
LanternWaste Apr 2012 #58
TriMera Apr 2012 #59
Fla Dem Apr 2012 #68
leftynyc Apr 2012 #19
WingDinger Apr 2012 #21
CJCRANE Apr 2012 #28
WingDinger Apr 2012 #37
CJCRANE Apr 2012 #40
WingDinger Apr 2012 #45
leftynyc Apr 2012 #61
libodem Apr 2012 #23
Arkana Apr 2012 #30
WingDinger Apr 2012 #32
Arkana Apr 2012 #34
johnnypneumatic Apr 2012 #42
patrice Apr 2012 #44
closeupready Apr 2012 #51
patrice Apr 2012 #63
closeupready Apr 2012 #67
WingDinger Apr 2012 #69
closeupready Apr 2012 #74
patrice Apr 2012 #71
closeupready Apr 2012 #76
patrice Apr 2012 #83
closeupready Apr 2012 #85
patrice Apr 2012 #86
provis99 Apr 2012 #64
AverageJoe90 Apr 2012 #66
WingDinger Apr 2012 #70
AverageJoe90 Apr 2012 #73
cr8tvlde Apr 2012 #75
LynneSin Apr 2012 #72
Behind the Aegis Apr 2012 #80
patrice Apr 2012 #87
LynneSin Apr 2012 #88
patrice Apr 2012 #89
Major Hogwash Apr 2012 #90
patrice Apr 2012 #94
Ian David Apr 2012 #77
Behind the Aegis Apr 2012 #79
patrice Apr 2012 #84
patrice Apr 2012 #81
Rex Apr 2012 #91
patrice Apr 2012 #93
WingDinger Apr 2012 #95
TriMera Apr 2012 #96
WingDinger Apr 2012 #97
patrice Apr 2012 #99
patrice Apr 2012 #98

Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:57 AM

1. Which reminds me of this video by Thom Hartmann


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:00 PM

2. I don't think anyone chooses their orientation at all.

You are what you are, and that's that. Sexual orientation is just a natural thing and we all are who we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:05 PM

5. I agree, I just enjoyed pointing out to this person that perhaps they are gay/bi and haven't come


to terms with this attraction toward the same sex? They have no way to argue back which is so much fun!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:48 PM

24. To brand those that question whether Gay is inborn or not, may make you FEEL good, but is counterpro

 

productive to the goal of mainstreaming LGBT's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:04 PM

35. I disagree 100%. Not branding them anything.

It would be "branding them" if I saw something wrong with being gay, which I don't. It's just a natural thing that occurs in nature. Chances are these people probably are bi-sexual based on several studies. They need to come to terms with this and stop repressing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:15 PM

38. WE are ALL bisexual, to some extent.

 

That is part of my point. A continuum, of sexual preference, flies in the face of EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER. And fer us or agin us, is Bushspeak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:21 PM

39. How do you know? Have you been inside everyones body?


How am I saying you are fer us or again us? I am nothing but pro-gay and lesbian as a straight person. Is that not allowed? I don't get your logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #39)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:24 PM

41. By making Bisexuality some kind of aberration, and solidly restraining yourself to one or the

 

other gender as attractive, you set up BT, of LGBT as the enemy as well as homophobes. WE have seen this in the Feminist, and Gay forums.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:34 PM

46. Who is making bisexuality an aberration?


Your logic is like saying one has to be black to respect blacks or one has to be short to respect being short. I think it's just if not more admirable if someone can respect someone when they are nothing like them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:43 PM

48. The drive to make gay inborn, has made many

 

call bisexuality confusion. And further muddied the waters by making transexual women for instance, gender CHOOSERS. Not as entitled to know how a woman feels etc.

Those that say they Chose, and are presently Bi, are often shunned. Or treated as confused. Even here on DU. These are the unintended consequences of CHOOSING a political position, ostensibly scientifically, yet revealing an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:47 PM

50. I don't care if someone is 100% gay or 1% gay or completely 100% straight


If other people have prejudices against where people fall along this line making them not gay enough or the other way around that is their problem. For me, live and let live no matter how gay or straight you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:52 PM

52. THAT, is the proper way to fight for LGBT rights.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:55 PM

54. When did you write the playbook?

Because in my 25 years of fighting for LGBTQI rights, I have not received a copy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriMera (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:00 PM

55. I fought the continuum concept when young, as I too was homophobic.

 

I argued with my instructors. With age, and maturity, I accept that I too have feelings of attraction to those in my gender I admire.

The inborn concept, argued to protect gays, is relatively new, and as one poster said, the haters back then, wanted to make gay inborn, so it could be deemed a disease. Now, the tables are switched, so that inborn gay can be a protected minority. Agenda driven then, and now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #55)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:15 PM

60. You can still have the continuum concept and accept that we don't choose how we are.

Some people are gay, some are straight, some are bi, some are mostly straight, some are mostly gay etc.

That's just how we are. There's no need to involve choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:23 PM

62. I would buy that as a working theory.

 

Thats just how we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:30 PM

65. Exactly. There's no choosing one's orientation. It just is.

If it's bisexual, then that person may well choose who to have sex with based on anything. But, one doesn't decided what orientation to have at some point, as far as I can see. You are whatever you are, at any point on the spectrum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:53 PM

53. This post makes no sense.

"Those that say they Chose, and are presently Bi, are often shunned." Bisexuality is a sexual ORIENTATION (just like homosexuality and heterosexuality) and it was you who said that everybody is bisexual to some extent (thereby negating bisexuality as a sexual ORIENTATION). And anyone who says that someone who is transgender chooses their gender is just ignorant. You're not helping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:39 PM

78. The "ALL sexual identity is 100% inborn" argument is TOOOO close to so-called "Natural Law"

logic for me.

Although Natural Law proponents try to use Natural LAW AGAINST LGBTQ, if you assume ALL LGBTQ is biologically PRE-DETERMINED, then you have the same logic that supports "Natural Law". And it is their case for Natural Law that tries to prohibit marriage and parenting amongst LGBTQ, not to mention the oppression of "the weaker" sex known as Women, amongst a whole host of other assumptions supposedly exclusively codified by "nature".

The only difference between the two is that Robert P. George et al, Natural Law purveyors, don't agree that LGBTQ is biological.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:02 PM

3. Bullseye

"I think the only way someone might logically come to the conclusion that it is a choice to be gay, is if they have some kind of attraction to both sexes."

As they see the attraction to the same sex as a choice they may have contemplated, it is more likely they were responding to their natural attraction of the same sex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:03 PM

4. Haven't you heard? Gay sex is so good that it'll make you....

... accept a lifetime of threats, derision, job discrimination and other vile behavior directed your way.


Yeah, that's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:46 PM

49. And there's all those cool parades.

So they got that going for them, which is nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:10 PM

6. Funny how your logic never gets into the discussion.

I couldn't agree more. If being gay is a choice, so is being straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:43 PM

92. That's the way I've always thought about the issue.

To quote Frank Zappa, "you are what you is" and you're born that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:13 PM

7. As a straight woman, I would love the ability to choose

There are some women whom I know I would feel sexual about if I had sexual feelings for women. But...I don't.

I've been propositioned by women, and I've been flattered. Wish I could, but, sorry, no, I don't go that way. I feel I may have missed opportunities for a different kind of intimacy. Or, maybe I'm full of shit.

I admire people who can see beyond gender and simply love.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:55 PM

27. So you can't do something you admit you may want to do?

Choice or not, what difference does it make. A long time ago it was widely accepted as a choice because of attempts to label and discover and define homosexuality as a genetic probability which in turn could be used by hate groups to call it a disease. I'd rather it be a choice over anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:37 PM

47. 1. Kinda sorta. 2. I totally agree.

I tried it a couple of times and I couldn't get into it. Maybe it was cultural conditioning due to being raised a strict Catholic. So I say, "eh, it's not for me." I enjoy sex with men and don't feel particularly deprived.

It would be nice if I could choose, though. I mean, if every adult in the world could view every other adult in the world as a potential life partner/lover, without the filters that everyone grew up with, to one degree or another.

I think it's important just to love. Period.

Does that make any sense? I always have trouble articulating this position. Perhaps that is a reflection of my own ambivalence or disappointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:14 PM

8. omg this is pure gold

i hear a lot of this i am in a low knowledge state
this is awesome
i can say "well as a straight guy i dont see the choice but if YOU can choose maybe you arent as straight as you thought?"
i can see the foreheads swelling as i type

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwampG8r (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:39 PM

18. I agree! It just came to me this am because it occurred to me that I have zero attraction to other

men, so why would I ever chose to be with another guy? Complete silence on that thread now! As you said "pure gold".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:15 PM

9. On the flip side

Why would anyone not choose to be gay if we had a choice?
Men and women compliment each other in many ways, but consider how many ways the sexes are more aligned with each other.
A friend once said we would all be lesbians if not for the penis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:01 PM

33. Plus, if you date someone with the same body type and size, you double your wardrobe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Reply #33)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:25 PM

43. That's so true. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:16 PM

10. We have a choice to treat those who love us with dignity, compassion, honesty and loyalty -

or not. After that , any and assorted contact with various body parts doesn't really matter!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:16 PM

11. I don't know; I was born LGBT.

I can understand why someone would choose not to be straight.

I just don't think it happens much.

"Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night."
Woody Allen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:19 PM

12. These people who say there is a choice must have had to make a choice.

We used to call them "switch hitters." I don't know the proper term. Perhaps we should start using it for them.

Evidences another orientation, "doesn't matter."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:26 PM

13. It is an organic CHOICE, made about Two years of age.

 

If you can call that a CHOICE. After that, it is set. The fact that it is a choice, in NO WAY makes it fodder for hateful politics. Nor should it preclude protections against discrimination.

The thing to protect against is, those that hate gays trying to edumacate two year olds, to straightify them. Nor do we have a solid idea, what factors CAUSE a choice either way. It is moot.

Sure there are researchers that have found brain DIFFERENCES. That in no way requires we believe it inborn. Or hereditary. I would have no problem if it turns out to be so. But the misguided notion that science needs to toe the line, so as to make LGBT's a protected minority, as they cant change their stripes, is naive. Next time we need to convince haters of our veracity, we will be ignored.

Gays are just as much included in the right to the pursuit of happiness as anyone else. To perch the war against homophobic hate on heredity, is to cede our greatest weapon. The Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:42 PM

20. WTF is an "organic choice"?

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriMera (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:46 PM

22. An organic choice is, that you didnt get a worksheet, or multiple choice test.

 

You began to identify with those on one side or the other. Sure that could still be guided by heredity. And it could be strictly a choice. Why the need for it to be hereditary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:52 PM

26. Why do you feel the need to complicate things?

Just the use of the word "choice" gives fodder to those who would deny us our rights. Trumping up some crap about it being a choice, even at two years old, will do more harm than good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriMera (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:59 PM

29. Why? Do we need to end fodder to freaks like Bachmann and her homophobe husband?

 

Will they require reeducation camps? Fight freaks, as freaks. Ginning up our position with pseudoscientific conclusions is NOT in the interest of MAINSTREAMING LGBT's.

Allowing Bachmann, and her homophobic ilk, to force you to actions, is a lot like Osama forcing us to discriminate against Muslims. Face the boogieman directly. Face Homophobia directly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:07 PM

36. Oh, I do face homophobia directly. Most every day.

Studies regarding heredity are not pseudo-scientific. Now, the crap that you posted above...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:03 PM

56. much like being left or right handed

I am under the impression it is a biological orientation based on heredity-- much like being left or right handed (or tall or short) in that there is no choice involved, although social mores did often coerce left handed people to act like right handed people, but coercion isn't really a choice, and acting like a right handed person isn't quite the same as being a right handed person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:08 PM

57. I am ambidextrous, by practice, not heredity. There are likely related changes to my brain.

 

Thus, determining whether or not it was a choice, or heredity, is complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #57)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:56 PM

82. Did you choose to be tall or short?

"I am ambidextrous..."
I'm almost certain you allege that. That's not either complicated, though...




Did you choose to be tall or short? Or do we entertain more prevarication on your part?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:01 PM

31. But it is genetic.

You know how I know? People who study this shit told me so after exhaustive research, and I prefer to trust the experts rather than "my gut".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:28 PM

14. "When did you choose to be straight?"

Here's a little 3 minute video of voxpops on the same subject...

Street interviews conducted by Travis Nuckolls and Chris Baker in Colorado Springs prove that asking the right question can be more important than anything you can tell someone.



To be fair to the interviewees, they all seem to be fairly openminded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:29 PM

15. Do you remember enough about being Two, to answer?

 

Further, the notion that we place somewhere on a continuum, is incompatible with being all one or the other, Or being somehow CONFUSED. //i have man crushes all the time. I really like Ezra Klein, Jonathan Capehart and others. Doesnt mean I want to DO THEM, but illustrates the continuum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:32 PM

16. I'm not a philosopher or scientist

but for me making a choice is consciously choosing between two equally valid options.

If I'm not conscious of the decision or something forces me towards one option then it's not really a choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:39 PM

17. You very well COULd have chosen then, and forgotten now.

 

It truly is a moot argument either way. The harm in trying to FORCE heredity, is that it gives haters ammo to say they are trying to force us blah blah blah. MAinstreaming LGBT, is the goal. THE ONLY GOAL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:51 PM

25. If I'm not aware of it, then it's not a choice IMO.

Also, if it really is a choice between two equally valid options, then I should be able to choose the other option at any time, and switch between the two at will.

Some days I have a chocolate milkshake, other days I have a strawberry one. That's a choice.

But I accept that there is a continuum, and also that people might even change orientation over their lifetime, but I still don't see it as a choice in most cases.

There have been both gay and straight people throughout history, so I agree it's time to accept this fact and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:11 PM

58. I think you're confusing forcing a thing, and merely observing the reality of a thing.

"The harm in trying to FORCE heredity..."

I think you're confusing forcing a thing, and merely observing the reality of a thing. We are not forcing a heritary explanation, merely observing and accepting it.

Additionally, simply accepting a premise based on biology does not in any way deny the perspective of also basing that same premise on civil rights and equality...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #58)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:15 PM

59. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:56 PM

68. You can almost see the "light bulb" go on over their heads when they are asked.....

"When did you choose to be straight?" Kind of opened their minds just a little bit. Thanks for posting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:41 PM

19. I tell anyone who says it's a choice

that it definitely is not or I would have given up on men a long time ago. That seems to shut them up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:43 PM

21. What is the purpose in "shutting them up"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:58 PM

28. I think the poster means that they don't have an answer to that

so they voluntarily shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:07 PM

37. I still ask, other than the fear of freaks like Bachmann and her hubby, what is to be gained by SHUT

 

SHUTTING THEM UP?

As in Civil Rights, MLK did not gain Blacks respect, by shutting anyone up, but calmly asserting his being a human being. In fact, he encouraged WHITES to spew hatred. And highlighted it. We should do the same with LGBT rights.

the born gay thingie, is a DISTRACTION to the FACT that LGBT's are human beings, as entitled to the pursuit of happiness as anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:22 PM

40. You are playing into the hands of Bachmann et al.

They think it's a choice and make a living selling their ridiculous therapy to help people unchoose.

I think being a RW religious fundamentalist is the real choice that is causing the problem.

Take away the RW religious dogma and there is no problem with being gay.

So my advice to gay wingnuts is not to pray away the gay - instead you should pray away the wingnut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:30 PM

45. Homophobia, and much of wingnuttery, should be portrayed like

 

in the movie hairspray, where the parents of the girl, have a shrink try to hypnotize her into not going for Black guys. with that twirling whirlpool thingie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:15 PM

61. Anyone who thinks it's a choice

is really too stupid to waste my time speaking to. Thus, I shut them up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:46 PM

23. Gotta leave a little room for experimenting

Experimentation doesn't make you gay but you only get 3 chances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:59 PM

30. If it was a choice, no one would choose it.

So many people hate and fear gays--if it was actually a choice, why on earth would ANYONE choose it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:01 PM

32. If sucking toes was a choice, would Dickwad Morris choose it? And have to TOE Hannity's line?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:03 PM

34. Bazinga.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:24 PM

42. sexual orientation isn't a choice

but being a bigot, being a homophobe, is a choice.
Also, being a Christian (or any other religion) is a choice. Being a pro-gay Christian, or an anti-gay Christian, is also a choice.

(btw Quixote, it is "choose" not "chose")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:30 PM

44. It's about biology. Individual biologies vary. About that variation: One of the major tools

by means of which Rational Empiricism extracts knowledge/information from data (and that must be VALID data about sexual orientation in this case, which would therefore include 2 factors: biology + environment, also known as nature + nurture because it includes things such as parents or other caregivers and society/culture that interact with biology) is Descriptive Statistics.

Here's a gross oversimplification of the issues:

Descriptive Statistics operates upon mathematical theories that, amongst other things, predict that:

- IF you could construct a valid & reliable test by means of which to identify & describe the appropriate biological and environmental factors that result in one's sexual identity;
- IF you select an appropriate sample of the sexual orientation population to administer your test to and that testing therefore yields the valid and reliable nature:nurture traits that affect sexual-orientation;
- Descriptive Statistics will reveal a distribution of the variations in the determining nature:nurture traits in the subject sample, and hence, population, and that distribution will range from strong instances of those traits to weak instances;
- AND IF the test subject sample is UNLIMITED, the data range will eventually show that in about half of your subjects the result of the interaction between nature:nurture was determined by the nature factors, biology, and in about half of your subjects the resutlt of the interaction between nature:nurture was determined by the nurture factors, which includes the sorts of things that affect the choices we make;
- Within those two subsets, i.e. stronger nature vs. stronger nurture, there will be variations in the nature:nurture traits from those whose result was as nearly 100% as possible determined by the dominant factor, be it nature or nurture, to those in which the result was determined by a relationship between the traits, nature:nurture, that approaches 50:50. Descriptive Statistics predicts that MOST of the data will range around that 50:50.

To me this means that if we could produce comprehensive complete KNOWLEDGE of the nature:nurture dynamic, by means of Rational Empiricism and Descriptive Statistics, we'd find out that there are two minority subsets: one as nearly 100% as possible determined by nature/BIOLOGY - and - another minority as nearly 100% as possible determined by nurture/CHOICE - AND -we'd see a majority of the data would show that the relative strength/determination of the relevant driver, be it nature or nurture, declines from those strong instances of those traits, are less and less determined by either one, until the relationship becomes more and more arbitrary (or, actually, determined by something, possibly transitory and hence unreliable, that we aren't testing).



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:48 PM

51. Some who are bisexual choose to repress their homosexual desires

and then claim to be straight. Perhaps it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, but since they offer that fact up to everyone - even total strangers - it's a matter of legitimate dispute, since we all have different definitions of what "straight" is and what "gay" is and what "bisexual" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #51)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:25 PM

63. Yes! And BECAUSE that is possible, so is the converse. SOME, i.e. not all, who are bisexual

repress their heterosexual desires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:53 PM

67. Yes, I agree with that. I do indeed think some bisexuals

repress their heterosexual desires.

Part of the problem with people is that our Anglo-Saxon culture demands a sort of purity of citizens - "make up your mind!", i.e., you're either "straight" or "gay". Bisexuality is a hallmark of 'savages' and 'foreigners' or even sailors ('sodomy, rum and the lash'), but not for 'normal' people.

I'm not saying I agree with that traditional mindset, just pointing out that this is what drives people in making decisions about their own sexuality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #67)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:02 PM

69. What you are blaming on caucasians, is in large part, the result of choosing a horse in the race.

 

Making gay inborn your agenda, makes you throw out the outliers. A simple consequence of having nature choose either or.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #69)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:12 PM

74. If I understand your point, I'm not sure I agree with it.

With a population size of 6,000,000,000+ individuals, there is likely to be a richer, more complicated picture of sexuality than if we were talking about a town of 10,000.

That is, there are people for whom an attraction to the same sex is, if not inherent, immutable, at a minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #67)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:08 PM

71. That kind of static zero-sum thinking has cost us so profoundly EVER so much more than we will

EVER know.

Especially since, as you point out, it is socially attached to "virtue" and "character" and what is "good" is MADE "good" by sacrificing EVERYTHING to whatever value is at question, with little, or 0, or inappropriate regard for what is being sacrificed.

Not that there aren't such, all or nothing, circumstances and situations, but they are rare and the sacrifices should be CHOSEN by FREE individual persons, not social cliques.

Most of us have never known, let alone experienced, authentic freedom; everything we think, and especially zero-sum thinking, should be recognized THROUGH that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:29 PM

76. Yup. Most people don't realize it, but

they are products not just of what they think and feel, but a product of social expectations imposed upon them by society, family, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #76)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:02 PM

83. What you say is the sense in which the statement "Freedom isn't free" IS true. It takes utter

immediate diligence and responsibility in all of the dimensions that you mention.

It also requires the realization, and this seems particularly pertinent to sexual identity, . . . it also requires the realization that Freedom does not necessarily mean NO CONSEQUENCES. Freedom requires the ability and willingness to recognize whatever consequences there may be and to make authentic CHOICES about them. If I choose to suffer the consequences of my actions, I am free of oppression and limitation by those consequences. If I CAN'T do that, I am enslaved by consequences and those who generate them.

I usually get a chuckle out of so many Libertarians who tell me that we aren't free because of this or that law or regulation. You CAN do that, whatever, for which you can accept the consequences. That's what "I am Spartacus" means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #83)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:13 PM

85. I can tell you get it. Seriously. You've thought about this a lot.

As I have, as an openly gay man. There is no person or thing that would make me EVER go back into the closet. Period.

Which means a lot of people aren't going to like me or be comfortable around me. Fine with me. 'I've got a life to live. You don't want to be part of it, there's the door.' (That's the attitude I adopt with just about everyone I come into contact.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:30 PM

86. I used to teach high-school seniors. Saw a lot. I HAD to understand or else!

. . . that, and I honor both Nature and (free) Choice.

To me, what authentically matters is how people treat one another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:29 PM

64. the real question is:

 

why does it matter if it's choice or heredity? Either case is alright by me. Frankly, if bigots are convinced it is all heredity, they will immediately be looking for medical therapies (gene therapy perhaps) to correct this inherited 'condition'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 02:50 PM

66. So true.

I have Attention Deficit Disorder. Did I choose to 'become', or 'act' ADD? Hell no, I was born with this condition.
A former friend of mine from Va. by the name of Eric had autism, Asperger's to be exact. Did he choose to be Aspie? Was there some thought that popped into his mind that made him go, "Hmm, perhaps I'll be autistic today."? Absolutely not.

Same thing with sexual orientation, or skin color, etc.......you can't change the circumstances of your birth. Just how you live your life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #66)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:05 PM

70. Unlike LGBT, there is less utility in deeming you as choosing or inheriting.

 

Noone YEt is making either of those a moral failing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #70)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:09 PM

73. Good point there. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #66)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:14 PM

75. Absolutely. Average Jane here ...

and after living in a Red State and much longer in a Blue State, regardless, I love my friends...male and female...but the thought of kissing my best female friend ...it just doesn't register anywhere on the scale...let alone get in her panties. Not Yuk or Yeah...just doesn't register. Now the male friends, we have had to sort through that differently.

I have two nieces who were gay from the start...I know because I was there and watched them grow up. They each "came out" in a different manner. But the fact they were gay was way obvious even to a homophobic family. My family has now altered its "Christian" views and both are welcomed as they are.

God bless 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:09 PM

72. I would ask this back - 'Why would anyone choose to be a dumbass douchebag?'

Because that is a choice and clearly the person on facebook that posted that question is a prime example of one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:48 PM

80. LMAO!!!

It is the the same vein of Kathy Griffin asking Michelle Bachman, "were you born a bigot?" LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:18 PM

87. It is possible to wonder that about those who are trying to tell us that ALL sexual identity is 100%

pre-determined, which reduces many potentially powerful factors and situations to 0, which is improbable.

The systems are way more fungible than people are pretending they are, not 100% fungible, but definitely NOT 100% concrete either.

And, personally, I have a deep ethical objection to objections to FREE choices.

I also don't know quite why LGBTQ would WANT to imply that CHOOSING LGBTQ would be wrong, so it MUST be absolutely pre-determined by biology in order to make LGBTQ "right". That just simply doesn't work logically for me; what's the priority issue: CHOOSING vs. NOT-Choosing - OR - LGBTQ vs. Heterosexuality? If the first is the priority, then we should be talking about Freedom vs. PRE-DETERMINATION, not sexuality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #87)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:30 PM

88. To be honest, I don't think anyone is truly 100% straight or gay

I think of myself as strongly heterosexual but I haven't ruled out the idea that I could be in a lovely relationship with a woman. There are women I have seen that I have been attracted to but I'm kinda in a point of my life where I'm strictly non-sexual.

I think ultimately it comes down to love - when we find someone we love and who loves us back, if you are both consenting adults then why should you be denied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #88)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:33 PM

89. He, he . . . I kind of thought that post didn't seem all that characteristic of you ...

as I know you, that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #88)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:37 PM

90. Well, you'll never be a good Mormon with that attitude.

Even after they baptize you after you die!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #88)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:22 PM

94. BTW, neither do I. And some of us can be psychologically vulnerable to members of the same sex

to an extent that we'd NEVER be with members of the opposite sex.

And I'm not even going to ask you which is more intimate, sex? or your bare mind-heart?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:31 PM

77. Because Hertz gives gay people the best rate on their car rentals?

If you sign-up for their LGBT plan, you get free, gay romantic comedy movies in the mail.

As well as puzzled glances from the people behind the counter when you show-up with your wife and kid to claim your car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:47 PM

79. Even bisexuality is not a choice, though it is commonly and mistakenly thought to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #79)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:08 PM

84. Nature/biology does not exist/develop in a vacuum. The context in which it evolves is physical &

Last edited Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

social and thus affected (more or less significantly) by emergent properties of all of those systems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 03:50 PM

81. I must say: I am soooooo happy! to see an intelligent civil debate about this here on DU now.

Was a time when that COULD NOT happen here.

I wonder if the changes that became DU3 had anything to do with this change in discourse here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:40 PM

91. Good reply! Took me a minute to think about it.

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:06 PM

93. "... only way ..."??? Or a person could just choose, more or less authentically, to not act on

one or more biological impulses/tendencies.

We do this all of the time for all kinds of motives; some people call that self-discipline and in the whole pantheon-in-process of more or less authentic traits and behaviors that we refer to as one's identity, depending upon what's at stake, the possible authenticity or in-authenticity of whatever is being repressed COULD be a trade-off for one or more other more or less authentic manifestations of self-identity.

Since there are no "absolutes" and, therefore, no perfection, a personality pattern/dynamic that includes some repressed traits relative to some expressed traits isn't necessarily a great crime. It all depends upon the individual's honest ability to recognize and freely choose each and every what, how, and why in exchange for each and every what, how, and why. Various things tilt those scales, stuff like love, security, friendships, ambition, money, power . . . . Who is anyone to gainsay anyone else's choices as long as those choices are honest and, hence, free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #93)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:45 PM

95. The strange thing is, this either or gay or straight jazz

 

makes so far straights very reluctant to try anything but their regular. Social pressure, makes them go into the closet. In fact, the inborn gay theory, expands the closet{STRAIGHTjacket}, we were shrinking, for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #95)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:51 PM

96. Who is we? And, do you have any links to back up

your assertions that "the inborn gay theory" has "expanded the closet"? WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriMera (Reply #96)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 06:56 PM

97. Not the gay closet. the straight one.

 

The one that makes us adhere to heterosexuality, no matter the cause. Religion, tradition, expectation, instruction, peer pressure, etc. All that would persuade you to maintain straight orientation. Around the late sixties, early seventies, bisexuality, was seen in many quarters as trying all choices. If you were a R and Roll star, and hadnt even tried venturing outside your hetero space, you at least faked it. Now, you had better choose. All I'm sayin is, the tactic makes it more likely that hetero's are likely to stay that way, as dabbling over the line is frowned upon as confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TriMera (Reply #96)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 08:30 PM

99. The universe of persons, to which that theory "inborn gay" can be posed as an exclusion is a MIGHTY

BIG number, so the probability that there are people who will run from it, making the closet bigger, is a HIGH probability, so now the question is "how many". How many will run away and hide compared to how many will evaluate themselves honestly one way or the other, pro or con.

I don't know those numbers and neither does anyone else, I'd bet, because you're asking to test people on something that at least a significant minority of them are very possibly running from in the first place.

One thing I do know: Part of the justification of LGBTQ Rights is derived from Human Rights. IOW, there should be LGBTQ justice, because individual persons are intrinsically valuable. This assumption negates the "how many" question. It doesn't matter how big the closet is. Even one who runs to the closet, whether that's an increase in the size of the closet over-all or not, even just one is too many and if that's not the case, then there is no such thing as LGBTQ rights, because if a right doesn't apply to everyone, it's not a right, it's a privilege, which is maintained by advantage/power.

That one person added to the closet IS significant not only to themselves and their loved ones, but also very possibly to us. How? Out of the many many who will run from the negative pressure, what if one person who runs from these negative either-or propositions about sexual identity happens to be the person who would have done something powerfully important to a lot of people had s/he not been intimidated by either-or social pressure about his/her sexual identity and, as a result, ran to the closet, which closet changed the course of their lives in a way such that their potential was warped and their discoveries and potential were never realized?

Important to you or not? I don't know that probability, but We can even change this question to something more probable, not about those who could "have done something powerfully important to a lot of people", something more probable about ordinary people. What about the infinity of small behavioral choices that result in much wider aggregate effects in all kinds of systems? Are those "small" decisions affected by whether one is happy or not?

If we make authentic self-identification a negative experience, from which people run, and a significant number of those defensively "run to the closet" which broadly effects their functional capacities, what about the result of all of those little dysfunctional behavioral choices made by absolutely "average" people because they are un-happy?

Is that result 0? I don't think so. What is it's significance? That's hard to tell, but it could be something as obvious as running a red light and killing someone, or cheating on your relationships, or lying about people, or the aggregate effects of all of that unhappiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #95)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:35 PM

98. Agree completely. It's a threat to self-identity & causes defensiveness on those grounds alone,

regardless of what one's actual sexual tendencies are.

Self-identity should be authenticated; it's validity should be tested, but blowing it up completely with these either-or propositions is a non-starter for most of us. Being at or close to 0 is a dangerous thing.

Perhaps my deepest problem with this zero-sum cognitive paradigm, in the case of LGBTQ rights, is the implication that LGBTQ is something so bad/horrible/wrong that one MUST! NOT! CHOOSE! IT!

It's possible to draw the inference that LGBTQ is somekind of sickness, for which the only justification, like other sicknesses, is that one's biology makes it unavoidable. That implication inhers in what you just said, WingDinger; people run from it because it's negative. For a few it is a question of either-or, but, at least in the terms of rational positivism, for most of us posing the question exclusively in those terms can be perceived as a negative. Q. Who's going to identify with a negative???? A. a significant proportion of negative types.

- And - Other than if it just does not authentically appeal to you personally, WHAT on Earth is so horrible/negative about choosing to or trying to love a member of the same sex? What if one of the significant "nurture" factors in the relevant processes turns out to be "Gaia -ian stress" in the environmental context resulting from over-population and ignorance and violence? This could support LGBTQ as an evolutionary step in functional adaptation between nature/biology and nurture/environment. Would that not make LGBTQ, at least hypothetically, a positive choice for those who freely choose it? *IF* "Gaia -ian stress" were the case, if LGBTQ were an authentically positive functional choice, wouldn't negative assumptions about it HURT even relatively "successful" LGBTQ identification, maybe even severely warp systemic potential for positive effects?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread