sexual orientation, like skin pigmentation, is an immutable trait

[Bertha Venation]

It seems that most Americans fighting against the right of same-sex couples to marry either don't realize this or don't accept it. Please discuss.

[alexwcovington]

1. Meh.

Not that I care, but I do think it's a choice we all make (concious or not). I'm 100% behind your rights though.

[Bertha Venation]

2. One question for you, my friend.

When did you choose your orientation? Oh, it was an unconscious choice? Okay. Even so, since it was a choice, you can unchoose it, right? Help me out here.

What other unconscious choices do we humans make?

When does sexual awareness hit us?

[bearfartinthewoods]

26. for some, it's obviously a conscious choice

for others it's hard wired. there are a lot of people who, technical speaking, have no exclusive orientation.

[Terran]

38. for whom is it obviously a choice?

If you're referring to people who are bisexual, yeah, they can choose whether they want to have hetero- or homosex, but being bisexual itself is not a choice. Sorry, nobody chooses their orientation, no matter what that orientation is.

[Mairead]

52. You're confusing orientation with behavior.

So far as we know, orientation--by whom you are attracted--is fixed along the 100% het <--> 100% queer continuum, with asexuality and paraphilias off to the side. It's believed, from cultural anthro studies, that sexuality (i.e., orientation) is distributed along the normal curve, with most people being able to respond to members of both sexes.

So the ones who have a natural bisexual orientation (Kinsey 2-4), if they've not been made too neurotic by natalist socialisation, can change their sexual behaviors. But no matter how much they might want to, they can't change their orientation.

[bearfartinthewoods]

68. what have i said that disagrees with your continum?

for the majority, orientation is flexible as to ++ +-.

unless you are claiming bi as a unigue orientation.

[Mairead]

81. That sexual orientation is 'flexible'. It isn't.

Everyone has a 'unique orientation', in the sense that it's their own and can't be exchanged for a different one by any known means. Some people, oriented fairly equally toward both men and women, can change their behavior so that they appear from the outside to be het or queer, but behavior is not orientation.

[bearfartinthewoods]

84. sorry...i don't buy that as a universal truth

[Mairead]

141. Okay. Do some research first, though, why don't you.

Because I'm not just making it up, you know. All the evidence from psychology, cultural anthropology, and ethology supports my description of the situation.

[bearfartinthewoods]

165. cite me research that shows that this is carved in stone.

it seems to me that yo believe that it's 100% nature over nurture and i don't believe that.

and again, please note that i am not making universal proclamations.
some people are exclusively ++ or +- orientated. i believe that but i believe that is a smaller percentage than those who are not exclusively orientated in either direction. unless you are stating bi as an orientation the idea is flawed that orientation cannot change.

btw...inho none of this means diddysquat when it comes to the rights issue.

[Mairead]

177. Okay, it's clear now--terminology difference.

You're using the word 'orientation' to mean what I mean by 'behavior'.

Metaphorically, behavior is the direction in which you turn your head. Orientation is how far it can turn. Not many people have heads that are fixed in position. Nearly everyone can turn their head at least somewhat, and the majority can turn it 180°. Some, though their heads have full range-of-motion, choose to keep it turned to one side.

People who can turn their heads at least somewhat are bisexual in orientation.

People who can't are either het or queer in orientation, depending on whether they can only look right or left.

[bearfartinthewoods]

182. our real problem lies with the people sho have their head

up their ass. :grin:

[scottxyz]

211. Bearfartinthewoods is wrong

Bearfartinthewoods "for the majority, orientation is flexible as to ++ +-."

So - most heterosexuals could just up and become gay tomorrow - and most homosexuals could just up and become straight.

Wrong again, bearfartinthewoods.

[nostamj]

4. how does one make an 'unconcious choice' ???

so, you believe that heterosexuality is a 'choice'? a decision?

<i need a head shaking smilie>

[cavebat2000]

6. Something you should read

http://www.ohsu.edu/news/2004/030504sheep.html

BUt at the same time, I think there are some people in the GLBT crowd who do choose to be GLBT. I wouldn't go as far as saying, "sexual orientation, like skin pigmentation, is an immutable trait"

I dont think science stands behind you on that one yet.

Just figured I'd add my 2 cents in.

Oh and I do support your right to marry. Right on. I dont care who is what, everyone has the right to persue happyness.

[lapislzi]

11. OK, so you could CHOOSE to be gay

Right?

Could you change your mind at any time?

Sorry; I think your position is completely indefensible.

[bearfartinthewoods]

28. tell that to ellen's ex wife

who was hetro-married to a man, homo-married to ellen, now hetro married to a man.

[lapislzi]

33. what's your point?

she could be either bisexual or deluding herself on one or the other count.

My post stands. You love who you love. For the more enlightened among us, gender isn't the issue.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[noiretextatique]

57. feeling persecuted by the "gay agenda?"...hmmm?

Why is it that Gays seem to be insisting that only homosexual love is real?
why is it that you think all gays are "insisting" this nonsense?

as to the rest of your diatribe :hurts: you're full of it.

[BigDaddyLove]

64. Not feeling persecuted either way actually.........

as I said, I don't give a shit what gay people do with themselves or other like-orientated folk.

You want your civil rights? Then don't pretend that everyone else is wrong and only you and your homosexuality are right.

If you are gay then you deserve to enjoy the same rights that everyone else deserves, nothing more.

[kayell]

66. So you are ok with gay marriage then

and that gays are entitled to the same respect as other human beings? And recognize that gays should not be discriminated against in employment, housing, or other issues, because of their consentual relationships with other adults. Am I understanding you correctly?


No, I don't think I am. I think you probably mean something else entirely.

[BigDaddyLove]

69. Of course I recognize and accept all of the points you..........

(nicely) accuse me of being against.

Save your attitude, you might need it sometime when it's actually necessary.

[kayell]

73. Ok, can you please explain then exactly what different or

special rights you believe that gays are asking for? You seem very angry at gays, believing that we want something different or better than other people have.

[BigDaddyLove]

83. Not at all............

I am annoyed however by the impression that Gay Marriage would somehow be 'better' for society than straight Marriage. In almost every pro-Gay Marriage thread there are alway numerous posts pointing out the high divorce rate in straight marriage, the number of abuses committed by straights in Marriages etc., etc.

It would seem that the prevailing view is that once Gays are allowed to marry, every such union will be a glowing example of what Marriage should be, and that straight people need to learn to love each other as well as Gays can and do.

Marriage is hard work; it's not some blissful Utopia in which both partners are magically transformed into perfect people. Gay people are no better qualified than straight people are to have a good, working Marriage, and I am tired of reading about how Gay people have a firmer grasp on what it means to love.

[kayell]

86. Those posts are to point out the hypocrisy of people who

claim that gay marriage will destroy the "sacred institution of marriage". I think you are reading those posts through a screen of your own bias.

[BigDaddyLove]

88. What personal bias do I have?...........

Since you clearly know me better than I do, I'd like to know.

Where have I said that Marriage is a 'sacred institution'?

[kiahzero]

97. Sorry to jump in the middle here, but

The PP wasn't saying you said marriage was a sacred institution. The point of the message was that many people argue that point, and the counterarguments are the things you were concerned about.

Under your argument as I understand it, same sex marriage is just fine, because it's just equal rights - nothing special or unique.

[BigDaddyLove]

112. Yes, that is more or less my point............

further I would add that because it is just about equal rights I don't understand why people have to tear down Straight Marriage just to elevate Gay Marriage.....this I think is unnecessary and offensive.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[BigDaddyLove]

121. No stumbling required.........

The act of Marriage between one Gay person and another Gay person does nothing to affect Straight Marriage in the least, a point that I haven't raised, but I'm getting used to having to point out that I haven't said what I've been accused of saying so that's nothing new, (but I appreciate your effort just the same).

What I object to is how in the Gay Marriage DU threads there is a constant drumbeat among it's supporters implying that Straight Marriage is somehow not as good as Gay Marriage would be; that because two Gays who love each other are somehow more capable of having a happy Marriage than two Straights are, because of the divorce rates, or the adultery that exists....as if these same issues won't manifest themselves in a Gay Marriage.

Joe Blow, Brian Buttlover?......and then you wonder why Middle (straight) America looks askance at Gay rights.

[noiretextatique]

123. ok..let's resolve this: post the threads you're referring to

and let's examine your thesis once and for all. so, put up...or shut up.

[BigDaddyLove]

128. I have an opinion about the attitude contained in some threads...

I have no real reason to do a research paper to provide documentation that support that feeling...it's an observation, one that you don't share.

Big fucking deal.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[slinkerwink]

163. you are missing out on the whole point.....

we point out the hypocrisies in straight marriage to show that marriage isn't such the "exalted, religious" institution that it is, and that any gays should be able to marry.

[noiretextatique]

89. no shit..."the screen of your own bias"

is exactly right. good luck trying to get this person to see this. you would think that the fact that his first diatribe got deleted MIGHT buy him a f'ng clue :shrug:

[BigDaddyLove]

91. I guess I have to ask you as well..........

What is my 'bias'?

It's amazing that how with being gay comes the amazing psychic ability to read other's minds.

[noiretextatique]

94. i think that's something you need to figure out for yourself

perhaps if your deleted post was still available, you could review it :shrug:

[BigDaddyLove]

96. I thought it might be sorta hard for you to find my bias..........

as it doesn't exist.

[noiretextatique]

100. perhaps you should ask the moderators

why they deleted your post!?! perhaps there are some clues for you in that post.

[BigDaddyLove]

103. Clearly they deleted it because..........

a closed-minded Gay activist such as yourself was horribly offended by a differing viewpoint....surprise, surprise.

[noiretextatique]

106. i'm no "gay activist"...i'm just gay

and, apparently, your "differing view" was not acceptable to the DU moderators. :scared: unless...they are ALL :scared: GAY ACTIVISTS!!!!!! :scared: perhaps you should let skinner know about this :scared:

[BigDaddyLove]

108. Enough with the hyperbole already...........

it just gets in the way.

[noiretextatique]

109. right...does that hyperbole include "gay activist?"

again...i think you should take your own advice :shrug:

[ldf]

223. with being gay comes the amazing psychic ability to read other's minds

it's just an offshoot of "gaydar". some of us are better at it than others.

:-)

late post, many have reiterated, but...

we aren't saying gay marriage is better than straight marriage. we are just pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the arguement that is put forth by the anti-gay marriage crowd.

gay marriage will have all the wondrous results (wonderfully happy couples, many with children, adultery, divorce, open arrangements, abuse, etc) that straight marriage has.

it just seems that your opening statement predicated that we, for some reason, thought we gays would be able to do so much better of a job of making the institution of marriage work.

not so! we will be no more successful than you at it. but we deserve the right to try.

[noiretextatique]

67. oh my LORD...you are PROJECTING

your indignation about "gay rights" onto gay people, when you need to check your own twisted (and apparently, conflicted) thoughts on the subject. i don't know any gay person who does what you claim ALL GAY PEOPLE do. as i said :hurts:

[BigDaddyLove]

71. Then you need to take off your rainbow-colored glasses........

when you look around (especially on DU when a 'Gay' thread is created) if you don't see derision of heterosexuality (esp. Marriage) as being a failing 'institution' and how Gays can do SO much better.

[noiretextatique]

74. i think you need to understand that, regardless of what you read on DU

your *false* generalizations have more to do YOU than gay people.

[kayell]

75. You have numerous links to illustrate these points?

Please post them.

[noiretextatique]

77. he's persecuted by the gay agenda, apparently

as expressed on DU...which he then extrapolates to the entire gay population...everywhere. and he still doesn't get that he's the one with the problem :eyes:

[kayell]

79. *Nods in sad agreement*

Another persecuted heterosexual. When will they ever achieve the simple respect that they are owed as human beings?

[BigDaddyLove]

85. No 'problem' here........

just a difference of opinion...sorry that you can't handle it.

[noiretextatique]

87. you are one who "can't handle it"...and there is no difference of opinion

your deleted post is a testament to that.

[BigDaddyLove]

90. No, my deleted post is a testament to the fact that when it.........

comes to Gay Marriage, one cannot tread too far off of the well-beaten path that is the DU party line, or else someone will be terribly offended and you will be called 'bigoted', or 'anti-gay' or some other such nonsense and your post will be pulled; nothing more.

[noiretextatique]

93. it's a testament to that fact that when it comes to gay rights

you are full of :hurts:

[BigDaddyLove]

95. Thanks for your eloquent and well thought out response........

nice trying to talk to you.

[noiretextatique]

98. likewise...and in the future: if you really want discussion

first check your baggage at the door. you started this by accusing gay people of thinking their love or rights or whatever is "superior" to that of heterosexuals. and since i am gay and i don't think that, and would never say that...i prove your ASSumption false.

[BigDaddyLove]

102. I did no such thing..........

What I DID do is point out that from reading posts here on DU with regard to Gay Marriage I notice an overriding tendency to paint a very simplistic picture of "Gay Marriage Good, Straight Marriage Bad", to which I object.

If you want to call this baggage, I could give a rat's ass; it is nothing more than my opinion...which is just as valid as any of your opinions.

[noiretextatique]

104. you said, very clearly

that homosexuals felt their love was superior to that of homosexuals, among other things. since your post was deleted, i can't quote you exact words, but your current spin ain't them.

[BigDaddyLove]

107. What I said was, that in reading posts on the issue........

it was clear that there is now a bias against Straight Marriage by those who are pushing Gay Marriage, and this bias is very likely to turn off those who are in support of it...sorry this isn't as monstrous as you wish it to be.

[noiretextatique]

110. no...it's just nonsense

massachusetts just made a clear distinction between "marriage" (for hets) and civil unions (for homos). is this the "bias" you're referring to?

[BigDaddyLove]

116. No, I was referring to the overriding attitude that surrounds........

the issue on DU.

[noiretextatique]

124. as i said in another post: put up or SHUT UP.

provide some examples from ACUTAL THREADS here...or admit that you are making unfounded generalizations.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[noiretextatique]

133. wow...you really have some issues, don't you?

i suggest therapy :hi:

[BigDaddyLove]

135. Oh, I thought you left in a triumphant little huff.......

Anyhow, good luck marrying your partner; I wish you all the love and happiness in the world.

[noiretextatique]

136. marriage is for straight people

i wouldn't dare violate its "sanctity." :eyes: as for your little tirade...as i told you, it reflects more on you than anyone else...so please, by all means: continue!

[BigDaddyLove]

139. No it reflects frustration that I have........

trying to understand where in the world you keep finding my 'prejudice' and 'bias' against Gays.

I guess if you say it often enough it's true right?

[TankLV]

157. Yeah, sure. "I'm not bigoted or prejudiced against gay people>"

I just don't believe they should have equal rights.

I just believe they all consider themselves superior to "normal" people.

I just believe they all believe gay marriage would be superior to "normal" marriage.

I just believe...

Exactly what is the definition of prejudice, "pre-judging"?

Tell it to your bigoted cotierie of punks.

[Mrs. Venation]

160. This Statement Is Utter Nonsense

There is no bias against opposite sex marriage from those of us who support marriage for same sex couples. Good grief! Some people have stated that same sex couples can't mess up marriage any more than opposite sex couples already have. Is that the "bias" you refer to?

I think any two non-blood related adult human beings who love each other and want to marry should be able to do that. Same sex couples do not seek to thwart or damage opposite sex marriages; we just want to be a part of something that we find meaningful and desirable.

[Cronus Protagonist]

119. I think a lot of people on here should actually READ the Gay Agenda

I have a copy here. http://cronus.com/agenda

Enjoy :)

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[noiretextatique]

126. LOL...Cronus

wouldn't it be nice if those who harbor prejudices just admit it and deal with it vs. blaming those they harbor prejudices against?

[BigDaddyLove]

131. Yeah, especially if they ACTUALLY harbor those.......

predudices that they are accused of having.

[noiretextatique]

134. FINALLY...an admission

you know that's the first step, right?

[BigDaddyLove]

137. What prejudices toward Gays do I harbor?

Please explain that to me, as I've been waiting for over 30 posts now.

[noiretextatique]

138. your post got deleted, o dense one

why do you think that happened? "the gay agenda" at DU, perhaps? or was that in that post, you expressed some bigoted opinions...maybe? perhaps? possible? apparently :eyes:

[BigDaddyLove]

140. You win.......

It is increasingly difficulty to carry on this 'debate' because you are just snotty, accusatory, insulting and seemingly without a point, so I guess this conversation has been without much benefit to either one of us.

[foreigncorrespondent]

154. Did it ever occur to you...

...that by pointing out the failings of het marriage we are actually showing the hypocrisy the right is full of by saying gay marriage will destroy the so called sanctity of marriage?

[BigDaddyLove]

114. You keep referring to this 'indignation' and 'bias' that I..........

apparently have, and yet I don't feel indignant nor biased.

Gay Marriage is about civil rights, nothing more. Indignant? Biased? I fail to see it.

[Rockholm]

113. Not Asking For Anything More..

Just Equal.

[BigDaddyLove]

117. As it should be........

.

[Rockholm]

122. When The Anti Gay Crowd Starts With "Special Rights".....

especially when it comes to marriage, it really has never been and will never be about "special rights." It is about equal rights. It seems that you get that. The flip side of this *could* be that straight people have all the special rights. We have never framed it that way. As far as the original post, I am gay. Always have been, always will be. It is only part part of what makes me, me.

[BigDaddyLove]

127. I just don't understand why people think........

that I am anti-Gay Marriage, when that is not the case.

I merely object from time to time to the way in which the argument is being framed and discussed. Once you object in any fashion it seems that you automatically get labeled 'anti-Gay' and that bugs me to no end; words and concepts are instantly put in your mouth and read into your posts and you find yourself being challenged to defend or support ideas you don't have.

Gay Marriage is and will continue to be about equal rights, I find it unnecessary to try to paint Gay Marriage as 'better' than Straight Marriage as I feel is being done when the issue comes up; much in the same way as one almost has to feel embarrassed or sorry to be born a White male in this country anymore because we are constantly the 'enemy' on so many fronts.

[noiretextatique]

143. if you could provide just one example of this...

but you haven't...not one. i have never heard an argument for gay marriage that remotely resembles what you are talking about. can you provide an example?

[BigDaddyLove]

144. Sorry, I don't ordinarily converse with anyone who.....

has had a post deleted, because obviously that post must have contained bigoted comments that the DU 'Hetero Mafia' found offensive.

But in your case I'll break my long-standing rule.

It isn't an actual thread or post that I refer to, it's an overall feeling I get when seeing threads about the high divorce rate, or how much adultery exists, or why if this person or that person (usually a Republican or Christian fundamentalist) should be allowed to Marry, then why shouldn't Gays be allowed the same basic right....the point being that Straights who Marry don't deserve the 'right', while Gays who REALLY love each other and who would not run into these problems should be allowed to do so.

I personally feel that Gays should be allowed to Marry because it IS a basic right that should be extended to EVERYONE regardless of their sexual orientation.

I find it counterproductive to adopt an attitude that implies that those heterosexuals who decide to Marry do so for the wrong reasons and that they don't really love each other enough to be able to have a successful Marriage like their Gay counterparts who everyone knows know the true meaning of Love and Marriage.

I'm sorry if this explanation doesn't include any footnotes or documentation for you to research....which I'm sure will be your latest reason for dismissing what I have to say; oh well, I tried.

[noiretextatique]

222. your feelings...thanks for clarifying this

i don't think its just "gay activists" who contributed to these "feelings." nor i do believe it's just gay people who contributed postings to those threads you read that gave you those feelings. i don't dismiss your feelings at all...i just don't think they were created by anything you read here, or by gay people.
they are just your feelings...which begin and end with you.

[foreigncorrespondent]

153. No one in the queer...

...community claim that everyone else is wrong, and we are right. Were on earth did you get that thought from?

What is wrong is people being against equal rights.

[bearfartinthewoods]

65. my point is that you asked if someone could change their mind

obviously, some people can can choose. it's hardly a saecret that 'right person, wronjg sex' relationships happen.

[noiretextatique]

72. i think this has more to do with *behavior* than. orientation

i know a lesbian woman who though she could "switch" and marry a man to have a baby and a "normal life"...mainly to please her mother.
so, she changed her behavior...she stopped having sexual relationshops with women, and married this guy. well guess what? it didn't take. she was never sexually interested in this man, and after three years of trying to fool herself, she understands that she CANNOT change her orientation, i.e., she is still sexually/emotionally attracted to women.
i think it is a fairly common thing that occurs because of the taboos against homosexuality, and the resultant internalized homophobia.

[bearfartinthewoods]

92. i agree that societal pressures complicate things but

i also believe that sexuality and it's expression (at it's best) is an outgrowth of a loving relationship and that a person who's orientation has been +- can be equally satisfied and content with the right ++ relationship or vice versa. i've seen it happen.

again, we are talking of a variance to the poster's subject line of immutability.

[noiretextatique]

101. sure it CAN happen...but i just gave you an example

where that DIDN'T happen.

[lapislzi]

111. Huh? What's the "wrong" sex?

I'm not sure I get you here, BFITW (although I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt).

I guess in a sense you're right. If I met my soul mate and she happened to be a female, I'd have a problem. But I recognize that it's MY problem--a lack of enlightened sexuality, if you will. I can't get hot for girls, no matter how hard I try.

Maybe it would be nice to be able to choose. I think gender SHOULDN'T be an issue, but for whatever reasons, it is. And I think for most of us, it's immutable.

Maybe some of us can overcome that. I'm all for polymorphous perversity. Wish I could join. But alas, I am shackled to my Catholic upbringing.

[maggrwaggr]

18. you must be at least bisexual then

because why else would you think you have a choice?

[bearfartinthewoods]

70. hmmm......i have really never had a sexual thought about another man but

i bet that if i chose to i could develop a sexual/loving relaationship if the need arose. does that make me bi?

[Cronus Protagonist]

120. NO, that would be when you're a prisoner

Seems to be the only time bigots find the need to drop the pretences, and their pants. :)

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[molly]

194. Sorry dearie - no thought process here

I never-ever-ever had a crush on a girl. I had lots of crushes on boys though and I never even had to think about it!

[AP]

3. Race is not a fixed characteristic. Ask all the people in the US who were

considered negro because they had 1/16th black "blood."

Look at the pictures of the shoe bomber. He was a white, working class British guy.

Race is a shifting category.

There's some element of choice and some element of biology to sexuality, gender-identity, race, etc. But the reason we respect differences has nothing to do with biology or choice.

We respect differences simply because we respect differences and accept that there are lots of different ideas and views about things, and that they're all able to compete with each other in the free market of ideas, and, where there are conflicts, we resolve them in a way that is just, and subject to the equal protections and due process guaranteed in the constitution. And we also realize that diversity creates strength, and that we gain nothing by denying people happiness from behaviour that has not the slightest impact on our own enjoyment of life.

[tishaLA]

161. Post says "skin pigmentation"

not "race." Another apples and oranges argument.

[AP]

217. Are you kidding me? You don't think that post is referring to race?

Tisha, you've posted before that you're a grad student and that you were interested in, but admittedly not well versed in class issues. Now you're saying that you don't see an issue of race in a discussion equating sexual orientation with "skin pigmentation," which discusses biology vs choice?

What are your research interests, as a grad student?

[DIKB]

5. I haven't come out to my parents yet

I don't know how they'll take the news that <gasp> I'M STRAIGHT. 0.0

There is no choice much like there wasn't one for me growing up. The more these fundies use xtianity to browbeat homosexuals into "giving up the sinning lifestyle," the more they convince themselves it's a choice. The propaganda of religion lets them ignore Science and Nature.

[ramblin_dave]

7. Right vs left handed is a better analogy

You don't choose to be right handed or left handed.

Most people are right handed, a small minority are left handed.

Some people are ambidextrous.

Some left handed people have learned or were forced to be right handed and it works okay for them. But most left handed people are never comfortable forcing themselves to right handed.

[TahitiNut]

21. Yes, and now it's homosexuality that some call "sinister."

How gauche! :silly:

[eyesroll]

8. Indeed. I do think a lot of those "Americans fighting"

neglect to separate the sex act from sexual orientation.

We can choose our sexual partners (with mutual consent). Plenty of people who aren't attracted to each other, at all, have sex with each other, for a variety of reasons.

Ergo, a gay person can choose never to have sex with a same-sex partner.
And that's all these people who oppose same-sex marriage see.

But what they fail to realize is we can't choose who we love, or who we're attacted to. I didn't choose heterosexuality, just as you didn't choose homosexuality.

"Gay people have the right to marry, just like everyone else! They can marry someone of the opposite sex! See, we don't discriminate."

Sure, gay people can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. Some do. Few are happy.

[maggrwaggr]

9. my theory. Tell me if I'm wrong

That the people who think it's a choice are the ones for whom it IS a choice. Meaning they're either actually gay and choosing to live as heterosexuals because they feel guilty about being gay, or else they're bisexuals who actually do make a choice.

Any gays or bisexuals who disagree with this?

I just don't see how anybody could ever think a young male (I am male) would ever choose to be gay, what with all the pressures of fitting in and being normal as one grows up.

Also, I've loved women ever since I can remember. Some of my earliest memories involve pretty women who fascinated me.

[9215]

10. A young male could choose to

act gay if he wanted to be the center of attention.

[maggrwaggr]

16. yeah, if he wanted to get his ass kicked, or killed even

where I grew up, you would NEVER want to act "gay".

It could be quite dangerous.

[9215]

149. Well, yea like a redneck walking

into a black bar and using the "N" word.

[rbnyc]

20. Lot's of people choose to be themselves in the face of adversity.

I'm especially thinking of my FTM and MTF trans friends. They knew that coming out and making their transitions would make them more likely to be fired, murdered, thrown out of their homes, but they had to choose to be who they felt themselves to be. Living a lie was worse than living in danger.

This is slightly different than just choosing to be gay, straight, bi, or trans, because it assumes that the person really is a man in a woman's body or the other way around. What they're choosing is to embrace the truth.

As for whether homosexuality is actually innate, most people I know feel from their personal experience that it is. I also feel that my bisexuality is innate. I've tried to identify as a lesbian, but it wasn't true. I was just pretending to be a lesbian so I could sleep with women. I've tried to identify as straight, but that wasn't true either. I'm attracted to both men and women and can have fulfilling relationships with either gender. It took me a long time to realize that I didn't have to choose, that I am bisexual.

But as I said in a post below, my problem with arguing for rights on the basis that sexual orientation is innate, is that it sends the message that if a person could choose to be straight, that they should. I'd rather send the message that it's equally healthy, viable and just plain fine to be gay, straight, bi, trans, pan, two-spirit, what-have-you, and that if you wanted to choose to be gay there's no reason why you shouldn't.

[Pithlet]

129. I agree.

To me, it doesn't matter. I don't think it is relevant, particularly since it probably doesn't matter to those who choose to be bigoted. I don't think they care one way or another if it is a choice or not; they'll hate anyway. And I agree that arguing from the innate position can inadvertently send the message that homosexuality is wrong. Kind of a "poor them; it's not their fault, we shouldn't treat them bad" mentality. I don't think that everyone who argues from that viewpoint feels that way, but that is how it sometimes sounds.

[Mairead]

53. If someone can respond to members of the nominally opposite sex

they're not 'gay'. Best if you reserve the words 'gay' and 'straight' and their synonyms to people who are only attracted to members of one nominal sex group.

[Mrs. Venation]

82. I Don't Agree

I think people who argue that being gay is a choice cannot justify their prejudice if being gay is not a choice. They stubbornly cling to this argument, even in the face of medical/scientific studies that state otherwise.

People will go a long way to hold on to a belief that makes them feel superior to others; this is just one example.

[truthbetold]

12. I'd like to know...

If there was ever a straight person who woke up one day and DECIDED to be straight.
Why should it be any different for gay people?

[lapislzi]

13. Like skin pigment, there are also degrees

Very few of us are 100% anything.

Some are lucky enough to be 50/50.

I also think you love who you love. I know that sounds fatuous, but I seriously don't get why this is such a problem for people.

[SharonAnn]

14. And there's Michael Jackson. Not sure about his pigment.

Seems to have changed over the years.

[lapislzi]

15. I think he checks the box for "other"

...there is more truth in the Men in Black movies than we realize!

[rbnyc]

17. My problem with that is...

...that it implies that if a black person could change their race, they should, and if a gay person could change their orientation, they should. I would rather live in a world where people have equal rights not because they can't help but be who they are, but because it's fine for them to be who they are.

[lapislzi]

19. "Sure, I'll choose a lifestyle that'll get my butt kicked..."

...and allow me fewer rights than other citizens.

Yeah, right. People would choose that.

<sarcasm ON>

edited spelling.

[rbnyc]

22. I just think we have a better chance of capturing the rights...

...and respect we deserve if we don't argue for them from a place of shame. All I'm saying is that to put too much emphasis on the "I didn't choose to be this way" argument, sends the message that we'd be straight if we could be, and I think we should be proud to be who we are, proud enough to say, if I had to choose, I'd still be who I am.

Not saying it isn't hard.

[lapislzi]

32. I hope we get to that place soon

We (or I should say "I") begin with the next generation. I teach tolerance to my daughter with the admonition that "you love who you love. The important thing is to love."

The fact is, given the way society is today, I don't think many people would choose to be gay, even if they could choose. I am not gay, so I really don't know. (Aside: I know I can't choose to be gay. I tried once, and it just didn't work for me. Fortunately, she and I can laugh about it now...)

[rbnyc]

44. Me too.

I'm glad your daughter has someone like you.

We'll get there.

:)

[booley]

23. Does It Really Matter If It Is Immutable?

I mean, while I beleive it is, sayng that gay rights is dependent on it being biological is like saying that Jews and Muslims and Liberals and peopel who like Cheese don't have rights becuase those traits aren't biologicaly immutable.

Plus, what if somebody says they can change this trait through a proceedure? Or genetic therapy to make sure kids likly to be born gay can be altered in the womb? (think they did a play based on this ) Would that mean it would be then ok to discriminate against gays who chose not to change? Sorta like asking if racism would be ok if there was a pill that make brown folk white.

In short, I think harping on immutability may be missing the point.

[rbnyc]

24. B-I-N-G-O

Thank you. I was starting to feel kind of lonely.

[noiretextatique]

59. don't feel lonely

i don't think it matters either.

[depakid]

29. It matters under the law

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, forbids discrimination based on immutable characteristics, even though not all members of the race share the same characteristic and I seem to recall that a federal court case ruling that included sexual orientation in this category.

There is some physiological evidence to back this up- the most commonly cited are brain structures in gay men that tend to differ from those of straight men, though it's not at all clear what accounts for this.

[rbnyc]

30. Good point, tho not the 1st time the law has been short-sighted. (nt)

[kayell]

46. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes RELIGION

The phrase "because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" occurs in numerous sections of the act. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

Last time I checked, religion was not an "immutable characteristic."

[kayell]

50. No, it doesn't

I had been trying to find a good way to say this, and always have compared it to discrimination against religion. Your wording is much better. It really doesn't matter to me, genetic trait or not, it's not ok to be bigoted.

[duhneece]

25. I came to think of sexual orientation as being similar to left/right-hande

..to left or right-handedness. Not black and white, but pretty gray.
When my son and I took an apptitudes test, I tested right handed in 11 of the 12 categories (writing, throwing a ball, batting, swinging a bat or a golf club, etc.), but my son tested 6 areas left-handed, 6 areas right-handed.
So, yes, I think some people can fall in love with either a man or a woman, but some are pretty hard-wired to only fall in love with one sex.
I am 53 and straight, so far, but I'm telling you that if Melissa Etheridge had asked me backstage when I saw her in a concert...I'd a been a groupie for sure.

[rbnyc]

27. Adding to that...

...a lot of people who may be more naturally left-handed are conditioned to be right-handed in school.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[liberal72]

34. sorry

Edited: Removed remarks

[tkmorris]

45. You can't do that mate

From the rules.....

"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible."

I'm not trying to be a board nanny, just don't want you getting in trouble. Might want to edit :)

[lcooksey]

35. Against what?

Your religious is against having an opinion on whether sexual orientation is immutable? That seems a bit silly. If your religion won't let you have an opinion, you might need a new religion.

:P

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[liberal72]

37. I am Catholic also.

But I still believe you are born gay or straight. If you can chose to be gay, than that means you can chose to be straight. I am straight because when I see Carmen Electra I get horny. I don't care how hard I try I can not get horny over Ben Afleck or any other male.

[Terran]

39. What?

Show me in the New Testament where it says that. Christ never said a word about homosexuality.

[DAWUSS]

43. Exactly

But it is mentioned before Christ, though

[gator_in_Ontario]

58. As is the consumption of shellfish...

wearing of clothes made of mixed materials
and on and on. If it was so all-fired important to the christian god, why in his own name didn't he put it in those commandments???

[noiretextatique]

63. uh...excuse me...but, in another post you said christ

could not forgive homosexuality, and now you're saying it was "mentioned before christ." seems inconsistent to me...so which is it? or is it that somehow this belief has been (falsely) attributed to christ?

[Terran]

145. Sooo, how do you know that Christ can't "forgive" homosexuality

if he had nothing to say on the subject? The Old Testament was written long before Christ was around, and has little or nothing to do with Jesus and what he said or did.

You should also be aware that Leviticus, which is the section of the OT that you people normally like to cite as a prohibition against homosexuality, was written exclusively for the Tribe of Levi, the priestly class. It pertained only to temple prostitution, not to every day life; and it pertained only to male Levite priests--not women, not ordinary people, and not to sex outside of the custom of temple prostitution. This is all well documented as fact. Ask any rabbi or theologian.

[arewethereyet]

201. but NEVER as an unforgivable sin

the RCC does like to make rules without scriptural basis

[Snow]

42. See, Bertha, this is a discussion I remember having back in the

late 80's...if there is no choice involved, then it is obviously not a sin. Sin by definition is chosen. To which some of the (lesbian) women in the discussion responded, so what? All you end up with is a handicap as it were, like having cerebral palsy or being born deaf. Not a sin, but certainly an inferior and pitiable condition. We should be willing to celebrate human love in all its faces, not simply say "it's not their fault."

[lapislzi]

99. Original sin isn't chosen

the Catholic Church doesn't distinguish between sins of choice and sins of omission (at least not that I recall; it's been awhile). Hence the whole "sins of the fathers" nonsense.

Disclaimer: no Catholics were actually harmed in the composition of this message. Any inferred slur on Catholics is purely unintentional and the product of the reader's own pious imagination.

[kayell]

47. "homosexuality is the one sin not forgiven by Christ?"

Indeed? Please point me to the chapter and verse quoting Jesus on this issue. I must have missed it, but I'm sure that as a good, bible studying Christian you can find it for me.

[tkmorris]

49. Interesting

You manage to sum up quite nicely why I have difficulty discussing serious issues with certain religious people.

It isn't that you believe in God. It is that your opinions on matters such as these cannot be argued with, since they aren't your own beliefs in the first place. They were handed to you by your religion. Your ability to objectively consider all sides of an issue has been at least hampered and at worst totally obliterated by your religious beliefs.

Telling us that you believe something because "Jesus said it" is akin to me telling you I believe something because "Joe Pesci said it". I have shown no mind of my own, simply advertised the bandwagon I am currently riding. In fact it's worse than that, since you have only the vaguest hearsay evidence what Jesus actually said in the first place. I can actually call Joe Pesci.

[Mairead]

56. You can get help for it, you know. You needn't stay that way.

Unlike the claims about 'reforming' lesbians and gay men, there actually are many people who no longer have minds shackled by RCism. I'm one of them!

You, too, can change. All you have to do is want to.

[lapislzi]

76. LOL...I'm a RC too...

that would be Recovering Catholic...

[Mairead]

142. There are so many of us

:)

[noiretextatique]

60. so...are you free from "sin?"

if not, is it your place to judge anyone else's worthiness for forgiveness by christ?
no wonder i know so many catholic (including priests and nuns) closet-cases :eyes:

[rasputin1952]

61. That is not true...

Christ never mentions homosexuality.

In fact, there is only one "unforgivable sin" that Christ does mention, and that is the deliberate "shutting out of the Spirit", or the denial of Christ as the savior, after you have accepted him as such.

Please quote to me where, in thbe scriptures Jesus says homosexuality is an unforgivable sin.

O8)

[Mrs. Venation]

80. Can You Quote Scripture Where Jesus Said

that being gay is an unforgiveable sin?

[Bertha Venation]

105. DAWUSS: Please answer quickly!!

"homosexuality is the one sin not forgiven by Christ"

How do you know this? Where is it written? Did you chat w/ our Lord & Savior over scones?

Please answer quickly, because I just know you're about to be tombstoned.

[DAWUSS]

146. Sorry I was AFK for awhile

Anyway...

1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

[dsc]

150. That was St Paul not Jesus

I think the request was for Jesus.

[Bertha Venation]

155. Bingo.

Next? ;)

[DAWUSS]

166. And who's message was St. Paul delivering?

Hmmmmm?

[dsc]

167. actually he never met the man

so at best he was delivering hearsay. There is a reason we don't generally accept hearsay in courts of law.

[Bertha Venation]

184. His own.

Paul and Christ spoke two different languages. Paul wrote about the love of God, but being the pharisee he was, he just couldn't get over undercutting it with legalism.

Christ gave two commandments, and said all the laws were wrapped up in just those two. Yet Paul kept on and on, in every letter attributed to him, about who'll go to heaven and who won't, and how people should act, and what was best for people . . . .

Paul spoke for Paul, and no one else.

[DAWUSS]

168. OK, humans are the most civilized animals, right?

And all those under humans act on instinct.



Do you see homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

[kayell]

171. Yes, it's common in many species

Our nearest relatives, the bonobo, are essentially 100% bisexual. Homosexual behavior is common in dolphins, geese, and many other diverse species.

Added: As for humans being civilized, that is somewhat debatable.

[DAWUSS]

173. Added: As for humans being civilized, that is somewhat debatable.

Yeah, but for the most part, we are pretty civilized.


Remember, the Jerry Springer crowd does not represent all of America

[kayell]

174. Sorry I distracted you. How do you account for homosexuality

occuring throughout the animal kingdom?

[DAWUSS]

176. Could you show me related articles proving

That homosexuality occurs in animals?

[Ms. Toad]

179. Try spending some time on a farm, or at the zoo.

If you need more verification, here is a New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?ex=1079326800&en=88581fb397faf5e6&ei=5070

[liberal72]

181. That was on the Daily Show Thursday!!

It was hilarious.

[liberal72]

183. Have you read the article yet

DAWUSS because you might want to reply to it.:)

[Bertha Venation]

185. "Do you see homosexuality in the animal kingdom?" Yes.

Over four hundred animal species have been observed exhibiting clearly homosexual behavior. We could talk about bonobos, whose females turn to each other, or we could talk about some penguins, in which some males mate for life, or we could discuss any of the other species.

But Dawuss, it's really moot. I don't really care what animals do. We're not animals. We're human beings. And as much as you clearly enjoy derailing the discussion of equal civil rights for GLBT Americans, what animals do and what the bible says or does not say simply does not apply.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[kayell]

196. Bzzzzzt You lose

This is undoubtedly the most incompetent anti-gay posting I have seen to date at DU. You have managed to achieve a new low.

"Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve" ROFL

*rolling around on floor hysterically laughing, totally unable to imagine the level of brain damage that could result in this poor a showing, even from the totally religiously brainwashed*

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

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

[kayell]

200. I am well aware of the mechanics of heterosexual sex

I am beginning to wonder if you are old enough to have experienced any sort of sex. Your reasoning ability is not showing many characteristics of adult level thought or logic.

[DAWUSS]

202. I'm in high school

And I never had a girlfriend, so as for that first statement, no

[kayell]

204. Ok, then you get a bit of a pass

If you are still in high school and all of the messages you have been given throughout life so far are of this quality, it may have seriously warped your ability to think about issues. It is difficult if you have never been presented more than one side of an issue.

My best suggestion to you is to start looking at a number of different points of view on things. There are a lot of different view points on sexuality, even within the christian community. In fact there are different viewpoints within catholicism.

It's time you do a little research on your own, rather than just buying into what teachers, parents and priests tell you. You are almost an adult, time to form your own thoughts. Read the bible, if that's where you are, find out what it really says. Ask yourself questions about what it means. How will you deal with the contradictions? Read some liberal commentary to balance out the conservative stuff you've heard so far. Then ask yourself what makes sense.

Get out in the world. Look around at people. Are they as scary and evil as you've been led to believe? Ask yourself how you would feel if you found out one of your friends was gay? Would you be critical? Could you accept your friend for who they are? Is hate what you really want to live with all your life?

[Bertha Venation]

206. I hope you're still reading, Dawuss, I have a suggestion for you.

You are young, and clearly have been receiving some teaching about why your parents, or church leaders, or someone, would like for you to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

My humble suggestion to you is that you think for yourself about the issue. I'm not suggesting that you disregard what your parents want you to learn. But please, realize that you'll soon be an adult and will have the responsibility of relating to others in the real world.

Analogies like keys fitting locks do not apply to human relationships. The notion seems apt at first -- but it is ridiculously inept, and I am embarrassed for the person who thought it was appropriate to teach to a young man as an illustration of "why it's wrong to be gay."

No one really knows why some people are gay. All I can tell you is what I know from experience: I didn't choose it. I can't remember a time when I didn't know there was something different about me. I could never quite identify it, but I knew it forever. I came out to myself around age 30 (although I'd already had one lover), having spent several years fighting reality. I dated men, almost married one in fact. During every date, and even at the moment I said "yes" when Michael asked me to marry him, I felt desperate to run and hide -- not from the men themselves but from any semblance of a relationship that could lead to marriage.

I knew that it would be as wrong for me to marry a man as it would be for you, Dawuss, to marry a man. Do you see? The only time I didn't feel that desperation to run was when I was with a woman. I married the third woman I ever dated -- fortunately, although I didn't meet her until I was 36, I didn't have to date a lot of people to meet my soulmate.

Best wishes to you. I don't know if the banned are allowed to access profiles, so here's my email if you want to discuss this further. I'll reply (unless you show me disrespect). [email protected]

[TankLV]

158. That is a lie - not true.

NOWHERE, I repeat, NOWHERE does Christ ever mention homosexuality. Not one single thing. Ever.

[slinkerwink]

164. Christ never said anything about homosexuality....and it seems that

God who slaughtered all those innocent children of the Eygptians and the Soddomites, thinks that abortion is murder? I think not.

[kayell]

175. Some theologians think Christ did say something about homosexuality

in an accepting way.

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php
Episcopal priest, Dr. Tom Horner has written the Gospels imply in two places that Jesus' attitude toward lesbians and gays would not have been hostile. The first is found in the story of Jesus healing the Centurion's servant. The word used for the servant is "pais" which in the Greek culture referred to a younger lover of an older more powerful or educated man. Clearly the story demonstrates an unusually intense love, and Jesus' response was wholly positive.

The other hint of Jesus' attitude is seen in his comments about eunuchs. Jesus opposed divorce in opposition to the abuses experienced by women. It is in the context of marriage which Jesus said that "some eunuchs were born so; others had been made eunuchs and still others choose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake."

Jesus' remarks about celibacy and castration are clear, but a male child being born without testicles is a rare birth defect. It is only in our day that the Kinsey Institute has demonstrated that sexual orientation is likely determined prior to birth. It could well be that those to whom Jesus refers as being "born eunuchs" are the people we call lesbian or gay.

Jesus' attitude toward eunuchs differed greatly from the fundamentalist Pharisees of his day. To them, eunuchs were excluded from the covenant and barred from worship and participating in the community of faith. Jesus' graceful approach to eunuchs is beautifully pictured in the promise of the prophecy of Isaiah 56:4-8, "To the eunuchs...I will give them an everlasting name that will not be taken away."

In Jesus' day there were three types of persons called eunuchs: celibates, those who were slaves and were castrated so that children would not be born to them, and those who were "born eunuchs" or homosexuals.

more

The poster is just spouting something someone told him. The historic person known as Jesus certainly did not say anything negative about homosexuality that was ever recorded. In fact, Jesus seems to have spent most of his time talking about accepting people, loving them, and not judging them. If there was any group of people he seemed to have real problems with, it was the rich.

Added: In the Old Testament, there are two beautiful stories of same-sex love - Jonathan and David, and Naomi and Ruth.

[Mairead]

55. What a dreadful religion you have, then.

I'm sure God doesn't approve. After all, Se made us all in Hir image.

[liberal72]

40. sorry

edited: reoved remarks

[lapislzi]

41. don't feed the trolls...n/t

[liberal72]

48. kick

:kick:

[Columbia]

54. Tell that to Michael Jackson

[Nevernose]

62. Scientific evidence

Still says it could be either one, nature or nurture.

They did a twin study here in America that suggested strongly that homosexuality was biological in nature; the same study, though, was conducted in Austarilia (and is currently being conducted in Western Europe), and has come to the exact opposite conclusion: that homosexuality is a result of choice/nurturing.

An interesting statistic: homosexual men are seven times as likely to have been molested as children. While this is of course anecdotal, it is strongly suggestive that homosexuality, at least for some, is a result of environment. This is anecdotal, as I said. Perhaps gay kids are more likely to be molested because they're gay? Or is it more likely that being molested as a child might affect that child in some way, the abuse perhaps expressing itself in adulthood through homosexuality? I tend towards the latter, but hell if I know.

There was that interesting study about 12 years ago that found certain portions of gay men's brains to be enlarged (thalamus/hypothalamus, I believe), but the study was small (only 13 cadavers), nonconclusive, and for some reason never reproduced.

I also know several gay people who swear that their homosexuality was a conscious decision. One is a close relative who was abused terribly by her first two husbands (and most of her lesbian lovers after them -- she could pick the biggest loser from a line-up every time). Another was in prison for four years. A third was in the Navy, on a nuclear submarine, without any women around, and just decided that he liked men better.

In fairness, though, most of the gay folks I know tell me that they were just born that way.

But what does it matter? No offense, but I really don't give a rat's ass about you or your partner's gender. What's in your pants is your own damn business, not ours. Is it just me, or are guys like Jerry Falwell a walking exercise in Freudian defense mechanisms.

[ramblin_dave]

78. Nature AND nurture

is what I believe the evidence suggests. And each in varying degrees according to the individual. And the nurture component, when it exists, usually occurs in childhood before a person is actually capable of "choice".

[9215]

115. I've also read that most of the serial killers are gay and/

or were molested as children. As a family and teenage youth counselor the boys who were sexually molested by a same sex adult often exhibited gay behaviour as they reached puberty--which was the only age I dealt with them.

I don't have the sources for the serial killer info, but maybe somebody else here may know something about that.

[kayell]

172. You are confusing pedophilia and homosexuality

If you work as a family and teenage youth counselor, you should have enough education in the psychology of pedophiles that you know that their having a preference for underage boys is completely different from homosexuality. You should also know that most pedophiles self identify as heterosexual, no matter what the gender of their victims. You should also be aware that if the serial killer figures are skewed in that way, it is because of pedophiles who kill their victims. Again, NOT homosexuals.

You should also know better as someone who works in that field that to perpetuate such harmful and false stereotypes.

Exactly what are your qualifications?

[Bertha Venation]

186. Good response. Hoping 9215 answers your question. eom

[Fred Duke]

147. Just thinking in a Darwinian fashion...

... it would strike me as unlikely that a 'gay gene' could propagate. It certainly flies in the face of conventional Darwinian evolutionary theory (still just a theory!).

That leaves environment and choice.

[dsc]

148. Not really

It could be that the gay gene is recessive and that having only one has some sort of competative advantage. That is the case with the gene for sickle cell anemia.

It also could be that having a gay relative is an advantage for survival. It wouldn't directly pass on the person's genes but ones close to them. Both of those would fit in with Darwin.

[Fred Duke]

152. Bucking long odds..

...and much intuitive sense, you have a point.

[maggrwaggr]

162. sorry but you're wrong there

nobody can figure out why a cat has a tail, either (Darwinianally speaking), but they do nonetheless.

Another example: allergies. I asked my doctor once why weren't allergies selected out by natural selection and he just smiled and said that throughout evolutionary history, human beings had bigger things to worry about like being eaten, killed by other humans, dying from bacteriological and viral diseases, etc. Allergies are a side effect from them not being lethal.

It is not lethal to be gay.

There are a ba-jillion examples of genetically transferrable traits which have no sensible Darwinian explanation. Darwinian evolution isn't perfect by the way. It's not an invisible hand leading to perfection. It simply is what it is and sometimes you get, say, a platypus.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

189. again

sickle cell amenia gives a good example of how a gene which would be a disadvantage to reproduction could very well prosper anyway. I would bet the gay gene works the same way by producing an advantage when it is alone.

[Fred Duke]

219. and again...

...sickle cell does not prevent reproduction. The gene propagates freely.

[dsc]

226. neither does being gay

sickle cell tends to kill before reproduction occurs but admittedly not always. In addition, I don't think females with sickle cell could reproduce (though I don't know that for sure). In any case sickle cell is at least as much an impediment to reproduction as being gay is.

[kayell]

190. Victim cover? Hunh?

What are you talking about? Are you saying that you think gays need "cover" for something?

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

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

[kayell]

224. No, you aren't the only one

Deluded, but not alone.

There are plenty of homophobes out in the world who believe that simply insisting on our equal rights is equivalent to begging for sympathy.

[dsc]

125. I know that in my case it wasn't a choice

I would have literally given anything as a middle and early high schooler to have been straight. I literally hated myself back then. Life was day, after day, after day of being called names, beaten, humiliated, and just treated like shit. The sad things is, that I have heard of much worse stuff than I had to take being done to others just here on this board. I would never have chosen to be different.

[Zorra]

151. Whether it is or isn't genetic,

and I really don't know for sure but I suspect it is, gay people have the right to marry and anyone that thinks differently should not be allowed to marry so that they can see what it feels like when bigots deny them their rights.

[mmm]

156. The answer is not known

I have clients who express an interest in gay sex only during periods
when they express (and their behavior dictates the need for) the need for a medication reassessment.
One could argue this forever. Point is simple: we just don't know.

[liberal72]

159. Kick

:kick:

[Guaranteed]

169. "So, therefore, it's not their fault."

I don't think this is the argument you want to make. You're conceding that there's something wrong with homosexuals.

Or are you trying to say that it's natural, and therefore correct?

Why not just say, "It has nothing to do with you, so it's none of your GD business!"?

[GOPBasher]

170. I agree.

I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual, and therefore I don't think anyone has "chosen" to be a homosexual.

[SarahB]

178. This is how I feel

I'm strait. I've always been attracted to men and want to form intimate relationships with men. To be with a women, for me personally, wouldn't feel natural. I just figure lesbians feel the way I do in regards to men about other women. It never seemed all that complex. Who would I be to tell someone else who they should love? We shouldn't have our rights stripped from us because of this either. Homophobia makes no sense to me. :shrug:

[molly]

180. You are obsolutely correct - there is NO CHOICE

involved. I asked my brother once when he realized that he was gay. He said when he was about 5 years old and wanted to marry the little boy next door. Others have told me very similar stories.

[Vladimir]

187. I gotta say I couldn't care less

whether its immutable or not. If two people want to get married, then its none of the state's bloody business to interfere except to uphold their rights.

V

[arewethereyet]

192. not immutable to Anne Heche

among others.

[molly]

193. She was a publicity stunt

[arewethereyet]

195. what about all the others ?

the ones who don't seek publicity ? Like the three I know ?

[kayell]

197. Bisexual

I would assume without knowing anything about her, that Anne Heche falls somewhere on the bisexual continuum.

[arewethereyet]

199. and thats the best argument against immutableness

the best one can argue is that SOME homosexuals are immutable and the rest represent personal choice.

[kayell]

203. What do you mean the "best one could argue?"

That rather makes me wonder if you don't think that it is a bad thing to be homosexual. What do you mean by that?

I have no particular stake in immutability or not. It doesn't matter to me, since I think that there is nothing wrong with being who one is, no matter what the reasons. I also think that bigotry is wrong, no matter what the reasons.

That said, the evidence for genetic basis is pretty strong, especially considering that homosexuality and bisexuality is common throughout the animal kingdom. And while possibly, just possibly, somewhat might be able to show me enough evidence that bonobos and dolphins are capable of the thought process to make a choice about their sexuality, I'm just not seeing it with the geese and penguins.

But back to your original statement. The fact that some people (possibly a high %) are bisexual, does not mean that sexuality is not genetically determined. It just means that some people have the (likely genetically determined) ability to be attracted to both genders. It doesn't mean that they can choose to be some other sexuality, just that they will sometimes choose or be attracted to same-gender mates, and sometimes opposite gender mates. In other words, their behavior may vary, but not who they are.

[arewethereyet]

205. the original poster makes the argument that this trait is immutable

the port to which I responded brought up bi-sexuality and the concept of a continuim. Given that it is impossible for them to argue that homosexuality is immutable, that the only arguable stance is that it is sometimes immutable and the rest of the time a matter of choice.

I do I mean by what ? You make an allegation, assume it to be fact and then demand MY explination ? I don't think so. But if you're interested I don't care one way or another, its none of my business.

The evidence I've read is not strong. Homosexuality is not commmon but does exist in nature. And I've only seen one study suggesting a genetic codification. This does not equal strong.

My only aim in this discussion is to point out that there is ample reason to doubt immutability in this. Its logic. If one reads this discussion and then takes it out into a hostile forum as it stood, these issues would come up and discredit that person and the argument in general and that serves no good purpose.

[Bertha Venation]

207. I brought it up because this is exactly the type of discussion I hoped

to start.

Whether it's immutable or not is moot as regards our fight for equality.

I want the issue addressed, however, because some people will never believe it's an issue of civil rights unless they can believe that sexual orientation is not chosen.

I don't know why I'm gay. Whether it's genetic, or a peculiar blend of hormones in my mother's womb, or the way I was brought up (doubtful), or some switch that was flipped in my brain during gestation, or during the time when my brain was still growing after birth . . . I don't know why. I also don't know why I'm left-handed, but I am.

The people who fight against my equality under the law will NOT believe the paragraph above. Many, my own father included, think that I chose this "lifestyle" because I'm a freak. My dad thinks it's because of mistakes he made. Religious radicals think it's because I can't get off with a man, or that it's just pervertedly so much better with a woman that that's how I have to have it. And those religious radicals refuse to accept that I have committed my life to one other human being in marriage in exactly the same way that each and every one of them has to their own mates.

Maybe, just maybe, if it is shown that we gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons don't choose "the way we are," just maybe some of those people will stop fighting us.

[arewethereyet]

208. you're right, that is the stickiest wicket

and the case to be made does have some holes, bi-sexuality and transgendered being the largest.

Seems like there is reason to think science will someday be able to support it though.

I would think its more a civil liberty issue than civil rights.

[kayell]

210. What do you see as the difference?

Could you define what you mean by civil liberty vs. civil rights issue?

[arewethereyet]

213. I can try

civil rights
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

civil liberty
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Sex is a private affair if there ever was one. Marriage is, driving a car etc.

[Bertha Venation]

212. "I would think its more a civil liberty issue than civil rights." -- Why?

Take just one issue: marriage. "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," <Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 1942> fundamental to our very existence and survival." So wrote the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

How did you reach the decision that it is not about civil rights?

edited to show accurate quote & link to Loving v. Virginia

see Loving v. Virginia

[arewethereyet]

214. why...

"Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process".

That WAS the decision being made in Loving v Virginia.

The rest goes to the traditional purpose of marriage recognition. "very existance and survival" is about children and children are not the reasonable expectation in a same sex marriage.

[kayell]

216. You can't reasonably use that arguement

If marriage is only about children and reproduction, than the state would have to actively work to prevent marriage between heterosexuals incapable of or not intending to reproduce, just as they actively work to stop marriages between gays. They would have to forbid marriage to people who have had vasectomies, tubal ligations, those who are over the age of menopause, etc. If they do not and still forbid gay marriage because it doesn't lead to reproduction between partners, than that would be discriminatory.

You also need to consider that many gays that want to marry are wanting to because of the benefits to their children. *gasp* Yes, gays produce and adopt children.

If I follow your arguement to it's logical conclusion, the government should only marry those people, heterosexual OR homosexual, or are willing to sign an affidavit that they are capable of reproduction or adoption and intend to do so. Perhaps there should be a mandatory time limit for the couples to prove their intent by actual production of children. After that the marriage would be null and void.

[Bertha Venation]

218. The ruling applies despite the fact that the issue at hand was race.

It is a matter of civil rights: the right to marry cannot be denied. The courts will soon hash out precisely who has the right to marry; it'll come down to two non-related consenting adults.

"'very existance and survival' is about children and children are not the reasonable expectation in a same sex marriage."

I disagree. Surely that's one thing the chief justice had in mind, but you seem to have missed the other part of the quote: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

What's more, take a look at the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 16 (1) reads: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." It mentions "family" -- not children -- and not as a requirement of marriage. (Mrs. V. and I together are a family, as is any married and childless couple.)

Moreover, Kayell answered your "traditional purpose of marriage" comment quite nicely, and in fact it is the same answer I give to religious radicals who are trying to "defend the sanctity of marriage."

[scottxyz]

209. sexual orientation, like skin pigmentation, always gets a high threadcount

Over 200 posts and counting.

I guess not only rightwingers love discussions about sex and race.

No wonder the Rovians always make sure to push a sexual or racial "hot button" in their campaigns.

I haven't seen a thread this "hot" on DU since the news Captain Kangaroo died.

[DFLer4edu]

215. I agree with you

but it's pretty obvious people are born with a certain skin color. It takes a slightly higher level of thought to realize that gays and lesbians can't and shouldn't change who they are attracted to.

[drewb]

221. I've always wanted to marry my washing machine...

At least now I don't feel silly about it, I was born like this!

:loveya:

[indigo32]

225. drewb

I'd like to point out that theres a big difference between a washing machine and another adult human being. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

[drewb]

228. You've never seen my washing machine move...

Makes me cringe to call it a machine...

All I'm saying is that if we are in love, why can't we get married?

We only have "clean" sex...

Plus, I can start to deduct laundry detergent and count the W.M. as a dependant....

:loveya:

[Piperay]

227. I agree...

I'm straight, I didn't choose to be but I just am and I think it is that way with everybody, you are what you are.