Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[randomspot555]

-I see that you're going all over genes vs choice. In my opinion, that dilemma is totally irrelevant. Suppose being gay is 100% dependent on choice (as I believe it is). If someone is about to do something homosexual that has no impact on any other person, is there any good reason why they shouldn't do it? Seemingly no. But if there is, it would obviously be applicable to the case where sexual orientation is well defined from birth.

Again, I agree with this (well, I don't agree that it's a "choice",but for the sake of argument, let's say it is) in that if it's a choice, so what? You know what else is a choice? Religion. But people shouldn't discriminate against Jews or Muslims in terms of employment, inflammatory language, etc... and shouldn't based on sexual orientation as well, and I believe our laws should reflect that.

-Free speech. Homophobia and using "gay" as "lame" on one hand, Hollywood, media and subliminal messages on the other. You can't tell people and corporations what to say and do. After all, it's naive to want to be liked by everyone.

While you don't have to outlaw it, you can, as an individual, point out that it's still wrong and advocate that people don't use that type of language. And change is possible. It's often slow, but possible.

-On "cultural effects", like how some people believe that homosexuals act indecent and, as such, create a degenerate image of one's nation, you might see that those "homosexual indecent acts" are just different versions of "heterosexual indecent acts". For example, if you're a guy:

My favorite example is "omg! gay pride! why do they dress like that?!?!?! Put on some pants!!" but have no problem gawking at some cheerleader on a football field that is practically wearing a thong bikini.

-Perhaps I missed the related discussion, but health implications are the real issue. Things like HIV and anal sex. One should not only think if these implications are real, but also if the role of the state is such as to regulate such things.

Again, back to those other norms that striaghts do just as much as gays, HIV is not a "gay" disease, though unprotected anal sexual intercourse is one of the high risk activities that can transmit HIV. And the fact is, heterosexual people do that as well. That's why I think we need to look into the ban on LGBT banishment on giving blood. Either make it a broad ban of "anyone who has engaged in anal sex", which would include heterosexuals, or lift it completely.

-And finally, gay rights. It's an issue of the economy, really. More government spending available = more social offerings. A few years ago, gay rights briefly emerged on the Greek media. Now it's about people-who-barely-make-it-anymore rights. I believe a marriage can't offer anything to a couple in an emotional perspective, unless it's a couple that wants to bring personal affairs to the public (which is bad for love). To be clear, I believe that being homosexual relationships should be legal, as long as there is consent.

But LGBT equality won't cost a dime. Just integrate it into the same government divisions that enforce fair treatment in housing, employment, etc... that already exist.

No I only said the because the people here are talking in circles, providing opinions and not facts, relating other experiences and not own...
But please, continue.

Oh and no, im not a bigot nor am I discriminating. Unless you think my last post was, in which case I make fun of everthing including gays. Kinda like southpark.

And what "facts" have you bought to the table? You first said being gay is a choice, and then when several people challenged that, completely avoided their points and made some smart alack post.

 

[Hox]

I think for the most part sexuality isn't a choice. I mean, I sure as hell don't remember choosing. I just remember going to school one day and thinking "Wow, that guy's really, really hot." and then my next thought was "Holy ****, you're gay. This is gonna go overwell." Not to mention, I used to be legitimatley sexually attracted to women. Since I became more and more attracted to men as time moved on, I simply don't find women as attractive as I did before. I'm not unattracted to them, I'm just indifferent to them. As to why I suddenly felt attracted to men with tight abs and gorgeous faces, the answer to that is "beats me" I dunno. I just did. That's why I get annoyed with so many people telling me that my sexuality is a choice. It's kind of offensive. I mean, you're going to tell someone what they did? Not cool. I'm pretty sure a person knows themselves better than anyone else does. If someone says they didn't choose to be gay, then they didn't choose to be gay. It's not your place to tell them whether they chose or not. When you tell someone it's a choice, it's like calling them a liar, or assuming that they're too "confused" or "stupid" to know whether they made a choice or not.

That's not to say that I don't think sexuality can't be a choice, I don't see why not. It doesn't seem likely, but I haven't heard anything that suggests it's impossible. Too many people here are acting like sexuality is the most concrete, immovable thing ever. As I just explained, my sexuality definitley wasn't concrete. It evolved and changed over time. I didn't choose any of it, but it definitley did change. People are so sure of themselves in fact, that when they here an admission of someone claiming to choose, they assume that their sexuality was always the same. Now that's just ridiculous. If a heterosexual man who has slept with women his entire life, and then decides to experiment with men, and then is sexually active with men thereafter, by God, I'm pretty sure he chose. Some people would pipe up and say "No, this person was always bisexual" Hogwash. Ridiculous. If you never had a sexual thought toward a man, and then you experimented with a man and found it pleasurable, and were subsequently attracted to men after, that is not "always being bisexual."

 

[randomspot555]

I don't want to get too graphic since this is an all ages forum, but I think there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexuality in how you express it such as fetishes or kinks. Just because someone will "do stuff" with a member of the opposite/same sex outside of their orientation doesn't mean they align with that orientation, it just means that under certain circumstances, they'll expose themselves to some type of intimate content.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

I'm pretty sure a person knows themselves better than anyone else does. If someone says they didn't choose to be gay, then they didn't choose to be gay. It's not your place to tell them whether they chose or not. When you tell someone it's a choice, it's like calling them a liar, or assuming that they're too "confused" or "stupid" to know whether they made a choice or not.

I'd like to point out that this argument also applies to people who claimed to have changed from one orientation to another. No matter how many times people say, "obviously he/she was never really gay," or "maybe he/she was bisexual," ... that doesn't make the counterexamples go away! With no proof, this is special pleading. You don't like it when people tell you that you chose to be gay? Then when someone says they chose their orientation, don't tell them they didn't.

 

[Sadib]

I'd like to point out that this argument also applies to people who claimed to have changed from one orientation to another. No matter how many times people say, "obviously he/she was never really gay," or "maybe he/she was bisexual," ... that doesn't make the counterexamples go away! With no proof, this is special pleading!

Maybe they were just confused, or they want to be straight so badly that they fool themselves into thinking that they were straight.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Maybe they were just confused, or they want to be straight so badly that they fool themselves into thinking that they were straight.

See my edited post. If you don't want people assuming that someone chose to be gay, don't assume that the people who said they chose to be gay (or to change orientation) didn't really choose.

Without evidence, such an argument is guilty of several logical fallacies. It is hedging, a double standard, and worst of all (because I know that many of the non-theists on this forum know this fallacy well) No True Scotsman.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I'd like to point out that this argument also applies to people who claimed to have changed from one orientation to another. No matter how many times people say, "obviously he/she was never really gay," or "maybe he/she was bisexual," ... that doesn't make the counterexamples go away! With no proof, this is special pleading. You don't like it when people tell you that you chose to be gay? Then when someone says they chose their orientation, don't tell them they didn't.

This is, loosely the philosophy I've adopted. If they say they chose to be gay, as in decided to develop a real physiological preference for the same sex, (usually) I listen to them, especially since I know a couple of people who have gone from happily straight to happily gay. I'm not going to rule out the reverse from the equation. The APA was the same way on the subject, since they provided information based on what their subjects told them, not based on how they interpreted what their subjects said.

Although I won't say this is airtight, because there are cases where a) people are going by an errored idea of the difference between choice and preference (a choice to take a path versus an instinctual satisfaction from a particular thing) or b) a confusion of being gay or straight versus being bisexual, and c) we have at least one study on conversion where outside authorities suspected the subjects were lying to skew the study in the direction of success. I don't actually know where to find the study, but I remember it was used in one of the past debates.

 

[Sadib]

I just realized that your example had someone who changed the orientation from one to another. You never said that they chose to change it. You might want to fix your hypothetical situation.

"I was never gay. What are you talking about? I was always straight as a rainbow... I mean billboard. Please don't hate me father."

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

I just realized that your example had someone who changed the orientation from one to another. You never said that they chose to change it. You might want to fix your hypothetical situation.

"I was never gay. What are you talking about? I was always straight as a rainbow... I mean billboard. Please don't hate me father."

I included both.

And your examples make no sense...Ganondorf.

 

[Sadib]

And your examples make no sense...Ganondorf.

Some homosexuals lie about their orientation to avoid discrimination.

 

[Hox]

I don't want to get too graphic since this is an all ages forum, but I think there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexuality in how you express it such as fetishes or kinks. Just because someone will "do stuff" with a member of the opposite/same sex outside of their orientation doesn't mean they align with that orientation, it just means that under certain circumstances, they'll expose themselves to some type of intimate content.

I agree with you. However, if your response was directed at my post, I clearly said that,

If you never had a sexual thought toward a man, and then you experimented with a man and found it pleasurable, and were subsequently attracted to men after

Not one time fetish/kinks.

I'd like to point out that this argument also applies to people who claimed to have changed from one orientation to another. No matter how many times people say, "obviously he/she was never really gay," or "maybe he/she was bisexual," ... that doesn't make the counterexamples go away! With no proof, this is special pleading. You don't like it when people tell you that you chose to be gay? Then when someone says they chose their orientation, don't tell them they didn't.

I completely agree with this.

 

[Grey Wind]

No I only said the because the people here are talking in circles, providing opinions and not facts, relating other experiences and not own...

I like all of the facts you provided. Oh.

There are are very few facts about this, so that's why neither side can provide much. I'm using common sense. Do you really think a gay person would choose to have all of that shit piled onto them? (discrimination, coming out etc.)

And you still haven't changed your sexuality yet.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Some homosexuals lie about their orientation to avoid discrimination.

And there easily could be other reasons one might lie. Indeed, some who aren't sure how they came to feel attraction to their own gender may have just heard the term "born gay" so often that they want it to be true of them. The same goes who might have wanted to change at one point, but found it difficult. If there is all sorts of media telling you "gays can't change and they shouldn't try," then what do you think is easiest to believe?

If someone believes that they should follow wherever the evidence leads, but exerts a lot of effort to avoid evidence against the idea that gayness is inherent and unalterable, then that person is guilty of confirmation bias.

And I see a lot of that in these threads.

 

[J.T.]

Here's the argument as I'm seeing it currently.

Homosexuality-is-not-a-choice camp: Backed by scientific study, scientific evidence (such as the link I gave a few pages back), the failure of "straight camps" and other such conversion methods, and basic common sense.

You-can-choose-your-sexuality camp: Backed by "I knew this guy who knew this guy who chose to stop being gay" and other such unverifiable anecdotes, and people living in a society generally unfriendly to gays publicly saying they're not gay anymore (many of whom have turned around and started fooling around with the same gender again).

Clearly we're the ones who should be expected to cave.

And about those who claim they chose their sexuality, or that their sexuality flowed smoothly from perfectly straight to perfectly gay or vice versa, at least one inquiring mind would like to know: At what age did this happen? (I'm not ruling out the possibility of either of those, I'm just saying there's not all that much evidence for claims of controlling orientation - for all I know it could still be possible in certain individuals, although as stated before whether or not one can control their orientation is not related to whether or not they deserve equal rights/marriage.)

 

[Hox]

Homosexuality-is-not-a-choice camp: Backed by scientific study, scientific evidence (such as the link I gave a few pages back), the failure of "straight camps" and other such conversion methods, and basic common sense.

Not disputing this.

You-can-choose-your-sexuality camp: Backed by "I knew this guy who knew this guy who chose to stop being gay" and other such unverifiable anecdotes, and people living in a society generally unfriendly to gays publicly saying they're not gay anymore (many of whom have turned around and started fooling around with the same gender again).

I'm just saying that I haven't seen any convincing arguments that suggest that a person cannot choose to be gay. Granted, most evidence does indeed suggest that homosexuality isn't a choice. I agree with you. Is that for absolutely everyone ever though? Who's to say that in rare cases, sexuality can't be chosen, or acquired over time? Or, who's to say that sexuality can't naturally flow and change overtime? The stories vary from person to person. Some gay people say they knew since they were very little that they were attracted to the same gender, others don't report having same sex attraction until much later in their college years. I know you want to scream "Anecdotes! Anecdotes!" but you've already allowed anecdotes to be used when they support your argument. Like the common "Just ask anyone who's gay" response to the "It's a choice" brigade.

And about those who claim they chose their sexuality, or that their sexuality flowed smoothly from perfectly straight to perfectly gay (or vice versa), at least one inquiring mind would like to know: At what age did this happen?

I definitely didn't choose my sexuality, but it definitely changed. I dated women, I slept with women, got my jolly's off playboy magazine just like any other, average heterosexual dude. It wasn't until I was about 17 that I started having same sex attractions. As my attraction toward the same sex developed, my attraction to opposite sex waned. Now, I do not find women sexually attractive whatsoever. Did I choose my sexuality? I don't think so, it just happened. Did it change? Yes it did.

 

[J.T.]

I know you want to scream "Anecdotes! Anecdotes!" but you've already allowed anecdotes to be used when they support your argument. Like the common "Just ask anyone who's gay" response to the "It's a choice" brigade.

This is usually accompanied by logic like "why would anyone in this society choose to be gay knowing that blah blah blah". Yeah, maybe there's a few lucky individuals who were given some sort of magical choice at some arbitrary age as to what orientation they are. But honestly, how precisely would that work? And how would you go about proving it? Until we get those questions answered, do we really have a reason to assume such a thing exists?

I definitely didn't choose my sexuality, but it definitely changed. I dated women, I slept with women, got my jolly's off playboy magazine just like any other, average heterosexual dude. It wasn't until I was about 17 that I started having same sex attractions. As my attraction toward the same sex developed, my attraction to opposite sex waned. Now, I do not find women sexually attractive whatsoever. Did I choose my sexuality? I don't think so, it just happened. Did it change? Yes it did.

Hmm, that's about what I thought - towards the end of the teenage years, hormones still raging, starting to age into adulthood. Definitely seems that it would be around that age that such developments would be most likely to, uh, develop.

 

[Hox]

This is usually accompanied by logic like "why would anyone in this society choose to be gay knowing that blah blah blah". Yeah, maybe there's a few lucky individuals who were given some sort of magical choice at some arbitrary age as to what orientation they are. But honestly, how precisely would that work? And how would you go about proving it? Until we get those questions answered, do we really have a reason to assume such a thing exists?

I'm not exactly sure how it would work, but I do love coming up with and playing around with hypothetical situations. Let's say a man in his thirties, heterosexual man (As in, never has had a sexual thought toward a man before) decides to experiment with a man. As to what situation led him to experiment with a man, *shrug* I didn't come up with that. Maybe his wife was into some freaky crap like partner swapping and things happened from there. He experiments with the man not because he feels sexual desire, but simply because he's curious. The same way straight people in high school can sometimes be a little bi-curious and experiment. After his encounter, he subsequently feels attracted to men after.

That doesn't seem to implausible to me. Nor does it sound impossible. It seems unlikely and silly to me to label this hypothetical man as having always been bisexual. Plus, certain sexual acts will feel pleasurable regardless of which gender it's performed by. Maybe in rare cases, sexuality can be something that's mentally conditioned.

Hmm, that's about what I thought - towards the end of the teenage years, hormones still raging, starting to age into adulthood. Definitely seems that it would be around that age that such developments would be most likely to, uh, develop.

By that logic same sex attraction should have started at the beginning of puberty, not toward the tail end of it. Most men finish puberty between ages 16-18. The raging hormones issue would really be integral toward early stages of puberty, imo. I'm also noticing something interesting in how I would choose to answer this question. If I had answered "Since I was very little" your response would have been "Oh, that's because you're born with it and it can't be changed." and if I respond with "17" it's because hormones are still raging. It's either one thing or it isn't. If it's neither, or can be one or the other, then we have to accept that sexuality may not be as concrete as we think it is.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Here's the argument as I'm seeing it currently.

Homosexuality-is-not-a-choice camp: Backed by scientific study, scientific evidence (such as the link I gave a few pages back), the failure of "straight camps" and other such conversion methods, and basic common sense.

You-can-choose-your-sexuality camp: Backed by "I knew this guy who knew this guy who chose to stop being gay" and other such unverifiable anecdotes, and people living in a society generally unfriendly to gays publicly saying they're not gay anymore (many of whom have turned around and started fooling around with the same gender again).

You know, I just realized how often you resort to straw man arguments. What I said was not only about choice, but I also included simple orientation change, precisely as Hox describes. Additionally, SunnyC mentioned right in the first post how in previous debates, a number of people said they chose to be gay. That's not "I knew this guy...."

If someone has no clue how they started feeling the way they did, and they hear all sorts of media telling them that people are born gay, what do you think is the most convenient thing for them to believe?

Hmm, that's about what I thought - towards the end of the teenage years, hormones still raging, starting to age into adulthood. Definitely seems that it would be around that age that such developments would be most likely to, uh, develop.

That's not a sound argument. If we should take at face value the claims of people who claim they were born gay and couldn't change after trying, then to dismiss Hox's firsthand statement means you are using a double standard.

Additionally, check out what the APA says:

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence.

J.T., what the APA article describes is the usual. That's not the period Hox was describing.

By that logic same sex attraction should have started at the beginning of puberty, not toward the tail end of it. Most men finish puberty between ages 16-18. The raging hormones issue would really be integral toward early stages of puberty, imo. I'm also noticing something interesting in how I would choose to answer this question. If I had answered "Since I was very little" your response would have been "Oh, that's because you're born with it and it can't be changed." and if I respond with "17" it's because hormones are still raging. It's either one thing or it isn't. If it's neither, or can be one or the other, then we have to accept that sexuality may not be as concrete as we think it is.

That's a very astute, accurate observation.

 

[Sadib]

If someone has no clue how they started feeling the way they did, and they hear all sorts of media telling them that people are born gay, what do you think is the most convenient thing for them to believe?

That's kind of like how a few years ago if someone realized they were attracted to the same sex and they saw how the media dehumanizes gay people, they might get confused.

 

[J.T.]

By that logic same sex attraction should have started at the beginning of puberty, not toward the tail end of it.

Not all puberty-related developments begin at the same time.

If I had answered "Since I was very little" your response would have been "Oh, that's because you're born with it and it can't be changed." and if I respond with "17" it's because hormones are still raging.

Oh yeah, heaven forbid I try to come up with an answer based on what little information I know.

It's either one thing or it isn't. If it's neither, or can be one or the other, then we have to accept that sexuality may not be as concrete as we think it is.

I never said it was totally concrete. I never accused you of lying when you said that you changed from straight to gay or said "no that's impossible". All I did was give a possible explanation based on what information you gave me. All I have said is that there's no evidence that one can actually, genuinely, honest-to-god choose their sexuality.

What I said was not only about choice, but I also included simple orientation change, precisely as Hox describes.

I know, but the choice aspect was the main thing I was discussing. All this about sexuality being fluid and changing as you age is not what I'm concerned with at the moment.

Additionally, SunnyC mentioned right in the first post how in previous debates, a number of people said they chose to be gay. That's not "I knew this guy...."

None of these people gave any follow-up, explanation, or clarification to those claims, iirc. In fact, come to think of it, I'm not sure if I've ever seen any of those few people post in the debate forum since. With nothing more than an "oh yeah I chose to be gay" from these people, it amounts to little more than the people in the paranormal thread swearing up and down that ghosts exist because they saw one once.

That's not a sound argument. If we should take at face value the claims of people who claim they were born gay and couldn't change after trying, then to dismiss Hox's firsthand statement means you are using a double standard.

I never dismissed Hox's statement, but okay, we can start completely ignoring all the people who say they didn't choose to be gay. Not like it was a central point of my argument anyway.

J.T., what the APA article describes is the usual. That's not the period Hox was describing.

Okay, I was wrong. *throws up hands*

Here's the thing: I don't have a problem with whether or not sexuality can change as people age. So Hox says he started turning gay around 17 years old? Okay cool. What I take issue with is the claim that sexuality can be chosen, or can change at will. Everything I've read so far has shown that homosexuality is, at the very least, not a choice. I've seen a grand total of two things that contradict this evidence - first, people throwing out what-if situations that are akin to claiming that since you decided to try a piece of pizza for the first time for whatever reason and it turned out you like it, you must have logically chosen to like eating pizza; and second, a couple one-off posters who provided unverifiable personal anecdotes to a bunch of people on a Pokemon forum claiming they chose to be gay, then leaving before they could answer any questions or provide any sort of elaboration. And let's assume for a second that, okay, maybe there are a few people who were blessed with some sort of choice in the matter. What exactly would that prove?

(Man I need to take a break from the debate forum. Forgot just how much I get sucked into it once I start.)