Absolutely hilarious column at the following website wherein the author, after a month of gay marriages in San Francisco, demands to know where his promised apocalypse is in a tone evocative of Marvin the Martian perplexed over the absence of the Earth-shattering kaboom.
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
PAD
• 
My main question is…
…Why does the media say that so much of this asinine nation is hëll-bent against same-sex marriage when I see so much support for it every day?! Are they expecting militant support with people waving rainbow flags, throwing condoms and strap-ons out of buckets like parade candy, and having same-sex intercourse in the middle of the streets as some form of protest? Frankly, most of the LGTB crowd I know (including myself) is NOT quite so militant… They protest through well-written editorials to newspapers, getting involved in college events such as showing documentaries on homosexuality and same-sex marriage in order to build understanding, and just plain trying to show the rest of the world that we are NOT that different.
Besides. *smirks and rolls eyes sarcastically* We lesbians get shafted in all this… What’s all this focus on gay males? Perhaps we ought to start a strictly lesbian coalition and take over the country with our butch double-headed axes with “ПKÊ RYGHTS” painted on them in human blood.
Now you’re scared. Yeah. That’s what I thought.
PAD, I knew I liked you for a reason other than New Frontiers. A Morford fan rates high with me.
Novafan, may I ask you a question? When did you make a *choice* to be hetrosexual? When did you consciously decide to suppress attraction to same sex individuals and become hetrosexual?
I’m still waiting on an answer as to what extra rights marriage grants to gays that hetrosexuals don’t receive.
You also asked, nova, how the suffering of gays can be compared to that of Blacks? Certainly slavery lasted for a longer length of time and many more citizens were subjected to abuse from that, however if you want to compare individual atrocities then I believe you’ll find equal levels of brutality. Not as wide and numerous but they do exist unless you choose to turn a blind eye to them.
EClark:
Posted by EClark1849 @ 03/06/2004 01:38 PM ET You don’t have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. Let’s be realistic here.Well, if you want to be realistic, you actually DO have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. You can stop breathing any time you wish simply by holding your breath.That’s a choice. Now, if you’re talking about stopping breathing for any considerable length of time then you’re risking death or at the very least brain damage.
Actually, no. When you fall unconscious from holding your breath your body resumes it’s unconscious routine without you making that choice. 😉
“Who’s to stop two people who aren’t gay from saying they are so they can get these extra rights too? All they would have to do is have someone give them a marriage license and poof, they are married.”
What’s to stop a man and a woman getting married for the same reasons? Gays aren’t going to get an extra tax break out of being gay, just the same tax break a straight couple would get from getting married.
Ben, you state that homosexuality being wrong as a cornerstone of your argument. Can you prove that it’s wrong? Right and wrong is really another subjective issue, made more difficult by the fact that there are no victims in this case.
Here’s a thought for those who claim homosexuality is a choice: doesn’t that sort of make heterosexuality a choice too? If you have A and B, and you choose B, could you not also have chosen A? If you could have chosen A, then A was a choice. And if A isn’t a choice, then how is B? And if both A and B are choices, why do we discriminate against one over the other? But, if neither A nor B is a choice, again, why do we discriminate? And for one anecdotal example of how homosexuality isn’t a choice, refer back to a couple of topic threads ago to the gentleman who said he was indeed gay, but chose not to practice that lifestyle because he thought it was wrong based on his faith. He didn’t stop being attracted to men. So, if the choice is either be gay or deny who you are and “choose” to live a heterosexual lifestyle, then essentially you’re saying that homosexuals have the option to conform to something they aren’t and should be happy about it.
Monkeys
Gotta love brokennewz.com
http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_758gaymormons
EClark:
Posted by EClark1849 @ 03/06/2004 01:38 PM ET You don’t have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. Let’s be realistic here.Well, if you want to be realistic, you actually DO have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. You can stop breathing any time you wish simply by holding your breath.That’s a choice. Now, if you’re talking about stopping breathing for any considerable length of time then you’re risking death or at the very least brain damage.
Katheryn:
Actually, no. When you fall unconscious from holding your breath your body resumes it’s unconscious routine without you making that choice. 😉
Sorry Katheryn, Choice still applies. That you relinquish control, be it consciously or unconsciously, and it goes back to the default setting is irrelevant. The fact that you CAN exercise control makes it a choice. Also, you CAN stop breathing permanently if your GOAL is to commit suicide. The steps are a little more involved than just exercising muscular control (i.e. shooting yourself in the head, slitting your wrists, etc) but the result is the same. You’ll stop breathing permently.
Ultimately the argument of CHOICE in the the context of sexual identity is largely one of semantics, unlike say skin color or even gender. Barring any sort of skin disease, divine intervention, or sudden changes of definition, I’ll be a black male till the day I die. I have no choice or control over that. I can’t stop being either, even momentarily, by wishing it, contracting a muscle, or holding my breath. I don’t have to take any actions or any kind to be either. I can’t abstain from the practice of being black or male, either voluntarily or involuntarily. No one has to follow me around all day to tell that I’ve been black and male ALL day. When meeting me most people can tell that I’m either black, male or both on sight or upon hearing, and sometimes through touch. THAT’s what it means to have NO CHOICE.
What do you mean, you can’t do anything about being a black male?
Michael Jackson seems to have altered both of those conditions…
“Novafan, may I ask you a question? When did you make a *choice* to be hetrosexual? When did you consciously decide to suppress attraction to same sex individuals and become hetrosexual?”
Maybe it was when I was molested by one homosexual when I was little and he tried to get me to like it because he said it was a normal behaviour.
This is the main reason why I will fight this tooth and nail so to speak. I will not allow this to happen in my lifetime.
So don’t tell me that gay people will not try to impress other people, especially kids, to not only look the other way but that they won’t try to get other people who aren’t gay to try it out because they believe it’s OK to do it. You can say you wouldn’t do this to your hearts content, but all it takes is ONE individual to do this to another one.
I’ll be waiting for the “if this really did happen to you…BS”
’nuff said
Novafan, what happened to you was awful.
it was, however, an aberattion.
There are monsters who prey on children in both the homosexual and the heterosexual persuasion.
they are not, however, the norm.
to put it another way: there are many little girls molested by older men, and there are little boys molested by older women.
Should heterosexual marriage, therefore, be not allowed, because it send the message that heterosex is okay, and might lead to some sick hetero people molesting children of the opposite sex?
Adam Schwartz
Maybe it was when I was molested by one homosexual when I was little and he tried to get me to like it because he said it was a normal behaviour.
This is an argument also used by male pedophiles preying on young girls.
Are you also arguing against heterosexual marrage?
And, yes, I WILL tell you that gay people, as a rule, will not try to “convert” other people, just as I will tell you that white people, as a rule, are not racists–not withstanding that there are white people who are KKK members and would dearly love to drag black people and yellow people behind their cars on chains. I do not blame the group for the behavior of a tiny, tiny minority.
I am very sorry for your painand the monster who did this to you should be punished for a VERY long time.
But I also belive that you are mistaken in the conclusion you came to. We are talking about consenting adults. We are not talking about a sick son-of-a-B who preys on children. What happened to you is akin to the old rape defense of “She liked it” What was done to you was about the misuse of power. I am sure that no one on this message board who agrees with allowing homosexual marriage would condone any type of child abuse. You may believe that homsexuality is a deviation, but I can guarantee that 99% of gays would agree that preying on children is a horrible monstrous crime. The other 1%, like the population at large belong behind bars.
I did not look up these statistics and am just making a point, so if anyone has better statistics, let me assure you I have not taken a poll.
Thanks for the clarification on consenting adults, Karen. It’s amazing how quickly and frequently people will link homosexuality with pedophilia. Much as with heterosexuals, the issue is about what two adults choose to do together, not what one person forces on another or anything involving statutory rape.
Novafan, your energies would be better spent helping victims of child abuse, not reinforcing the stereotype that homosexual=pedophile.
My sympathies on what happened to you, Novafan. It’s not something any child should have to go through, ever.
But what you’re talking about is abuse and molestation. Expanding that to insist that all homosexuality is bad and gay marriage is awful is a false generalization.
It’d be akin to saying that the Catholic Church should no longer perform weddings given all the cases of molestation by priests that have been recently alleged.
I don’t believe the Catholic Church is composed entirely (or even primarily) of abusers — nor do I believe most gay people fit that mold. I know too many people in same-sex relationships to think that.
So I agree with my fellow Lynch — you’d be better spending your efforts on helping abuse victims. I think it’s something everyone could support, here or otherwise.
Best,
TWL
I’ve been lurking around PAD’s weblog for quite some time… One of my favorite authors. Certainly my favorite living one since Douglas Adams’s untimely demise. Currently enjoying One Knight Only.
Thought I’d finely say something in response to this thread.
Someone made a comment way back about Lemmings… I’d just like to point out that to the best of my knowledge that is a myth created by Disney. (I was rather surprised, myself. Found out about it an Snopes.com, a rather interesting website devoted to Urban Legends.)
And now for an interesting counterpoint to those who may think of homosexuality as a choice: I am a heterosexual. When I had been single for quite a long time, I got to thinking one day, “I wonder if I might have any better luck if I were interested in other men?” That thought never left being a hypothetical question within my own brain, however, because I just could not work up even the slightest bit of interest in perusing it. So yeah, for me heterosexuality is NOT a choice. (Thus, I would postulate that neither would be homosexuality or bisexuality.)
Fortunately, I did eventually find love with a wonderful woman. She and I plan to wed someday, as soon as it is both economically and geographically feasible. And you know, if marriage is not yet a right that is available to any two people, regardless of gender, when I get married… Well, it won’t stop me, but it will make me feal a bit bad.
Now… there was also some talk of bisexuality up there. My fianc
Great article you’ve linked to, PAD. I really enjoyed it. This thread has taken a familiar turn, though, and it’s become a pointless argument more about the right way to support gay marriage than that it’s right to support gay marriage.
I believe sexuality is a state of mind. It is derived from a choice, though not necessarily a conscious one. I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion that the gender one is attracted to is determined in the early developmental years, and can be altered. I do not, however, believe that there’s anything wrong with this, or that a gay person who enjoys being gay should endeavor to change that aspect of his or her personality. I support gay marriage, though I support a full upheaval of the entire system that defines marriage legally because I feel the rights gays want for their significant others should be granted to all groups of people whose financial well-being is dependant on another’s, but gay marriage would be a good start.
As for why I believe sexuality is a choice, it’s because I remember choosing. I’m into women now, but I’m still somewhat attracted to men. When I was much younger and discovering myself sexually, I was presented with the opportunity for a homosexual experience I declined for analytical reasons only — more because I felt it would change my friendship with the boy than anything else. My sexual experience is limited, but I decided I preferred the personalities of women to those of men, and have maintained that stance.
There is an unconscious aspect of this, of course, and that has to do with my reaction to the chemistry I’ve felt with other people, and what I like. I don’t like pickles, but I didn’t choose not to like them, for example.
So for the guy who claimed anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice is a moron way up at the top — sorry, fella, but it’s just a part of your personality, and that’s not immutable. You may not remember choosing to be gay or straight, but that doesn’t mean your brain didn’t do it for you.
Also, there was one other thing I wanted to address: The question, “Who would choose to be gay?”
This is a wildly ignorant question. There are benefits of homosexuality. They may not outweigh the benefits of heterosexuality in your eyes, but not everybody is you. We all prioritize differently. It could be anything from pìššìņg øff a parent, joining a group you percieve as largely “better” people than the ones you’re leaving (I knew a couple guys in college who did something along those lines — their attitude was fairly similar to Mel Gibson’s attitude in the middle of What Women Want, where he’s extolling the virtues of women while totally ignoring the scientifically-proven fact that women are crazy), it could be any number of things.
The short version of this lecture is: “Never assume that simply because you can’t concieve of something that nobody else can.”
**As for why I believe sexuality is a choice, it’s because I remember choosing.**
That just means that the question becomes “Did you CHOOSE to be bisexual or were you born that way?”
**Also, there was one other thing I wanted to address: The question, “Who would choose to be gay?”**
**This is a wildly ignorant question. There are benefits of homosexuality. They may not outweigh the benefits of heterosexuality in your eyes, but not everybody is you.**
Sorry, excuse my ignorance, but I stand by the statement. Anyone who thinks they “chose” their sexuality is, 99 times out of 100, kidding themselves. Sure, a bisexual may choose to be exclusively with one sex but they did not “chose” their bisexuality.
Since you are bisexual I don’t think you have an appreciation for how alien it would be for a heterosexual OR a homosexual to start dating a different gender. It would be like a right hander deciding to be left handed for no dámņ reason whatsoever. Yes, it could happen. There are crazy people in the world. But such folks are negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Toby, you say that right and wrong are subjective. In that case murder isn’t really wrong, some people just think it’s wrong. This means that I or anyone else on this board, might as well go around killing people. You know, cause there is nothing really wrong with doing so.
Ben, you sort of understood what I was saying, but not really. Yes, murder could be considered not wrong, like in self defense or war. But, the difference between murder and homosexuality is still whether or not there are victims. I think right or wrong being subjective concepts totally changes when victims are involved, or if rights of other individuals are encroached upon. Sorry I wasn’t clear, and sorry if I’m still not clear.
Monkeys
*I just realized that monogamy and life mating are basically the same thing. I have no idea how I missed that earlier. I guess I wasn’t thinking straight. I still bet that one would be hard pressed to find an animal that is monogamous, and practices homosexuality; and humans don’t count.*
Penguins.
Okay Toby, now that I know what you meant, I ask you: What about suicide? There are no victims, because everyone involved is a willing participant. Is it still okay?
by the way, does anyone know why the site has been changed? Was someone posting crap again?
On a lighter note…to the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is nonexistant anywhere in the star trek mythos, voluminous as they are…
Roddenberrys utopia seems to have viewed the practice as an aberration, and devised remedies.
Bill Mulligan: “That just means that the question becomes ‘Did you CHOOSE to be bisexual or were you born that way?'”
Well, I guess I was technically born that way, since I possessed the equipment for both and a predilection for neither.
For the record, though, I consider myself straight. Since my sexual awakening, I’ve come to prefer womens’ curvy bits over mens’ blocky ones.
“Sorry, excuse my ignorance, but I stand by the statement. Anyone who thinks they ‘chose’ their sexuality is, 99 times out of 100, kidding themselves. Sure, a bisexual may choose to be exclusively with one sex but they did not “chose” their bisexuality.”
How do you know that? Why is it so hard to accept the idea that a person who claims to have chosen his or her sexuality actually chose his or her sexuality? Why is sexuality an immutable quality of the human condition? It’s not like it’s upheld the way gender and eye color are; it’s an aspect of the personality. The personality changes as the person grows, so why is sexuality so impossible? If I tell you I was bisexual as a kid, but now am exclusively for the ladies and do not find men sufficiently attractive to even consider them sexually anymore, how exactly do you know so much about me and my experiences to tell me I’m kidding myself?
“Since you are bisexual I don’t think you have an appreciation for how alien it would be for a heterosexual OR a homosexual to start dating a different gender.”
Of course I do. You can’t possibly think sexuality is the only thing capable of alienating a person from his or her entire community, can you?
“It would be like a right hander deciding to be left handed for no dámņ reason whatsoever.”
Actually, I’ve done that. Aside from writing with my left hand, I became a leftie for about four months in high school for a part in a play. When I got into character, I decided my character was left-handed. It wasn’t weird at all; in fact, it was kinda cool. I wish I hadn’t lost it.
“Yes, it could happen. There are crazy people in the world. But such folks are negligible in the grand scheme of things.”
Sorry, but that’s not even remotely true. Rules aren’t defined by those who follow them, but by the existence of those who challenge them. If everyone were straight, for example, homosexuality would be considered an impossibility. “Where would a guy put it?” people might be heard to say, for example. The first two gay people, though, would prove the rule wrong, since if something impossible exists, it’s clearly not impossible. If people can’t choose their sexuality, explain the ones who can and did. Calling them anomalies that prove nothing is an debate technique that resembles that of the fundamentalists. Maybe people can choose it, but they don’t know how. That seems a lot more likely to those of us that do know how.
Ben Lesar: “Toby, you say that right and wrong are subjective. In that case murder isn’t really wrong, some people just think it’s wrong. This means that I or anyone else on this board, might as well go around killing people. You know, cause there is nothing really wrong with doing so.”
This a totally wrong-headed view of what Toby said, philosophically speaking. For starters, “murder” is defined as “The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.” To murder someone, you must be breaking the law as you kill them. If you kill someone and are acquitted justly, you did not murder them. Murder isn’t wrong, it’s illegal — there are killings that are considered murder, technically, that some would argue were not wrong or evil.
Also, “not wrong” doesn’t mean “without consequences.” It’s not wrong for me to spend an entire paycheck on DVDs; that doesn’t mean I won’t still pay for it. If a guy travelled back in time and killed Hitler (the famous time-traveller’s conundrum) right after Hitler signed the papers or whatever to give Auschwitz the purpose it had under his rule, would they be wrong? I could and probably would argue that the action would not be wrong; after all, Hitler demonstrated an absolute disregard for human life, which is not a good quality in a world leader (never mind that it’s an extremely common quality in world leaders). There would be consequences for his actions, though, least of which would be his probable arrest and execution at the hands of the S.S.
To say that murder is inherently wrong is a judgement call.
“Okay Toby, now that I know what you meant, I ask you: What about suicide? There are no victims, because everyone involved is a willing participant. Is it still okay?”
Ðámņ right it is. One of man’s inalienable human rights promised us by the Declaration of Independance is the Right to Life. A right is not an obligation, it’s a privelidge. I have the right to Free Speech. The government can’t come to my house and force me to self-publish my unpublished writings any more than they can silence me when I choose to self-publish those writings. If I have the right to life, I have the right to choose not to live. Otherwise it’s an obligation.
drew: “On a lighter note…to the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is nonexistant anywhere in the star trek mythos, voluminous as they are…”
PAD! You’ve gotta get on that! If I read the New Frontier series, I’d probably have a great title for the one about gay people.
Seriously; Star Trek was pretty hippy-ish in its early days. There was a lot of deviant interspecies mating going on, after all. Sure, the aliens Kirk had sex with all LOOKED like chicks, but were they REALLY all chicks? Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Orion gender identities were reversed, and nobody in Starfleet noticed?
As a straight man, I never really cared whether homosexual people chose to be that way or whether they were born that way. I’m sure its an interesting scientific study of human behavior, but beyond that I never cared because since they aren’t doing anything that affects me or hurts anyone else, I do not consider it to be morally wrong. In fact, I think as a single man who has had his share of broken hearts, its really cool that two people, no matter what gender match, can fall in love. Beyond that I could care less what they do since they aren’t hurting anyone.
As for the above mention that homosexuals are preying on children and that makes it wrong, that is a popular misconception that men who like little boys are representative of the gay community. Gays are just as appalled by that behavior as any average person is. There’s a reason why they are called pedophiles instead.
Novafan, I too am sorry to hear of what happened to you as a child, but it wasn’t a gay person who did that, it was someone who preyed on the innocent. I’m speaking from experience here that some straight men and women both commit the same crimes on children. I have a cousin who was molested by her father and my ex-girlfriend was molested by her uncle. I myself had a rather uncomfortable experience or two with one of my dad’s ex-girlfriends as a teenager before he dumped her.
Here’s something similarly hilarious I saw posted on myspace.com:
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this morning, as others raped their children and household pets, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are citizens too.
“My marriage is over,” spoke one upset Christian as he dry-humped the fender of a parked car. “My marriage isn’t worth anything,” he insisted. “I feel no connection to my wife and children and I just want to do whatever I please, when it pleases me to do it.” With that he turned to a passing elderly woman and shouted for her to reveal her “tits.”
This same scene is being repeated over and over again, on every street in every city and town in America. Once devoted parents and spouses, America’s Christians are denouncing any bonds between themselves and their families as they embark on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
“We warned you that this would happen,” insisted one anti-human rights activist. “We told you that gay citizens enjoying equal rights would destroy marriage, the family and even Christianity itself. And now it’s happened,” he said. “You should have listened to us. If you had, I wouldn’t of had to have sex with three different strange men in a public restroom this morning.”
The fallout from today’s decision is enormous and far reaching. So big is the change that swept America this morning that it may be days before a true accounting of the damage is complete. As things stand, one unconfirmed report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University, defecating on his bible upon hearing the news, while other witnesses have come forward to report that they had seen Pat Robertson, former leader of the Christian Coalition and the host of the 700 club, enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the thousands of new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned children. It is hoped that this is only a temporary measure and that Christians will yet accept the financial responsibility for their families, even if they no longer love them and insist on mášŧûrbáŧìņg in public.
Ben, you asked if suicide was okay. I say yes, in some cases. Again, it comes down to victims. If the person killing themselves is the sole supporter of several young children, yeah, I’d have an issue with that. Wrong? You could argue that, since the father/mother brought the children into the world and thus has an obligation to raise them, and the children depend on this individual, so they would be victims. Otherwise, I can’t really call suicide “wrong”. A stupid solution, sure, but not wrong. However,I do think it’s silly that people who are painfully, terminally ill can’t end their lives to end their suffering and to end their families’ and loved one’s having to watch them suffer. Essentially, the government says “I don’t care how much it hurts, I don’t care if you’re dying anyway and I don’t care how much it’s costing you and your family, you *must* keep suffering.” Either way, I stick to right and wrong being subjective until victims and violations of other’s rights are involved.
Monkeys.
EClark, you say you have no choice about being black, but homosexuality is a choice. I was thinking, could you not dye your hair blond, wear blue contact lenses and get a really talented cosmetics artist to paint you up with white skin tones? Couldn’t you also check off the “caucasian” box on any form that asks you to identify your race/nationality? Could you not also behave in a stereotypical white fashion (and if you want to argue about stereotypical behaviors of people based on skin color, watch some stand up comedy routines)? But, underneath it all, and no matter how you act or what box you check on those forms, you’d still be a black man.
And that’s kind of the point with homosexuality, too. You could lead a heterosexual lifestyle, marry someone of the opposite sex, have children and a family engage in typically manly things (or feminine things). Doesn’t change the fact that underneath it all you’d still be a homosexual. You’d just be hiding it to not upset others. And to my knowledge, no black person (or any other race) went through the above steps to appear white to be socially acceptable. And they shouldn’t have.
You might argue the silliness of trying to paint your skin a different color, but in the end, it’s just the color of your skin. Sexuality is more integral to who you are and what makes you fulfilled and happy.
Monkeys
“And to my knowledge, no black person (or any other race) went through the above steps to appear white to be socially acceptable.”
Eddie Murphy did. We saw it on SNL, many years ago.
As to the rest of your statement, I don’t buy it. The difference between skin color and sexuality is that sexuality is linked to a number of social taboos, and it’s worth the effort to be what you want to be. I’ve known gay people who were happy to be gay, and they should make no effort to not be. I’ve also known people for whom homosexuality was an endless source of misery; for example, they’re physically attracted to men, but are unable to find a man with whom they are compatible, and have fantastic chemistry with women. Those people should make efforts to become what they want to be. If they want to be straight, or want to learn to like the gender-related habits of men, they should do what they have to toward that end.
Of course, this statement will bring up plenty of dissent with reference to such things as brainwashing, deprogramming, and other 1984-ish stuff, and rightfully so. After all, these are tactics the religious right would favor as mandatory if they could. The difference between that and what I’m saying, however, is I favor these things as electives only.
The other dissent I’m sure I’d hear, of course, is that sexuality is immutable, and people that appear to choose are merely confused. That’s a charming little theory, but psychiatry teaches that the mind is capable of incredible things. Mind over matter, willpower, and mental fortitude are clearly underrated by people who say things like that. Internal behavior modification is a powerful tool; the urge to fight one’s habits can lead to permanent life changes.
Skin color exhibits itself through the physical body, whereas sexuality is exhibited through behavior, which is mutable. The source of traits of the body may be immutable — though gene therapy suggests that may not be the case — but behavior is decidedly not. It may be hard to change, but to say it’s impossible is to give the human mind far too little credit.
Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Just because being attracted to ones own sex is no more of a choice than being black, doesn’t mean that practicing homosexuality is ok. Some people are naturally attracted to animals, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay for them to have sex with them.
I say “Since you are bisexual I don’t think you have an appreciation for how alien it would be for a heterosexual OR a homosexual to start dating a different gender.”
nekouken replies “Of course I do. You can’t possibly think sexuality is the only thing capable of alienating a person from his or her entire community, can you?”
Um, not sure what you are talking about. What I was trying to express was that for at least THIS heterosexual guy and for more than a couple of gay men I have been friends with, the thought of being with the “wrong” gender is just gross. Zero appeal. A far far second to celibacy as a viable alternative. Not gonna happen. Has nothing to do with alienating communities or whatever. It’s a hardwired thing.
Which is why I have no problem with gays being with each other, if they feel about the opposite sex the same way I do about my own. It would be perverse to try to force them to be otherwise.
Ben: “Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Just because being attracted to ones own sex is no more of a choice than being black, doesn’t mean that practicing homosexuality is ok. Some people are naturally attracted to animals, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay for them to have sex with them.”
Nor does it mean it’s not. This is a very subjective issue, and you’re imposing your own morality into it and stating it as fact. It’s fine to feel that way, but you need to back up your opinion with facts if you want to be taken as more than a loudmouth.
Bill: “Um, not sure what you are talking about.”
You said I can’t understand how alien it is. I told you that there are things more alienating than sexuality. I assumed you meant how alien it is to friends and family.
“What I was trying to express was that for at least THIS heterosexual guy and for more than a couple of gay men I have been friends with, the thought of being with the “wrong” gender is just gross. Zero appeal. A far far second to celibacy as a viable alternative. Not gonna happen. Has nothing to do with alienating communities or whatever. It’s a hardwired thing.”
Now that I see what you actually meant, I have no idea why you brought it up. Sure, I’m more open to the idea than the average person presumably would be, but what does that have to do with anything I said? I was answering the question, “Why would anyone choose to be gay?” If a person saw benefit enough in doing something alien to them, they would do it. Assuming that gay people have nothing but burden is just silly. I’ll respect gay people as much as I do straight people, but that includes not indulging their martyrdom.
As far as it being a hardwired thing, you’d be surprised what you can and can’t do under the right circumstances.
“Which is why I have no problem with gays being with each other, if they feel about the opposite sex the same way I do about my own. It would be perverse to try to force them to be otherwise.”
Well, of course it would. I never said anything like that; I favor everybody being with the gender that makes them happy. Some people aren’t happy with what they’re sexually attracted to, though. Those people may have to choose a sexuality, and frankly, it’s not your place or anyone else’s to insist that they’re only pretending to be what they aren’t.
Ben Lesar said: “Just because being attracted to ones own sex is no more of a choice than being black, doesn’t mean that practicing homosexuality is ok. Some people are naturally attracted to animals, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay for them to have sex with them.”
As has been brought up many times before, sex between two consenting adults is NOT the same as sex between an individual and some animal they choose to prey on. Moreover, you don’t have the right to tell someone who they can or can’t have a relationship with, in the same way that I can’t tell you who you’re allowed to date.
Dav
“Some people aren’t happy with what they’re sexually attracted to, though. Those people may have to choose a sexuality, and frankly, it’s not your place or anyone else’s to insist that they’re only pretending to be what they aren’t.”
I think we are just splitting hairs by now but, look, people can do what they want. If a gay guy is unhappy being gay and wants to marry a woman, well, okay. Hope it’s not my sister. Hope he tells the lady what’s up so she knows what she’s getting into.
But the scenario you propose–you are unhappy with what you are attracted to so you choose a different sexuality…I’m not sure I get it, since, to me, your sexuality is in large part the same as what sex you are attracted to. If you are attracted to men but choose to live a heterosexual life I think you are pretending to be what you are not. Which is fine by me, though I think it will probably end up being a bad choice in most instances. And the fact that such a choice is likely due to outside pressures makes it doubly unfortunate.
OK, I see where you’re coming from. Let me present an analog and see if it kind of explains what I’m thinking a bit better:
Imagine a straight girl who is asked to a dance by a man she finds unappealing, but is far too nice to say no to. He is neither physically attractive to her nor does she know anything about him that makes her want to like him especially.
She agrees to go to the dance regardless of this (for reasons I see no reason to make up since this is strictly hypothetical), but as she goes through with it, she learns things about him that she does find appealing; he’s smart, has an interest in clog-dancing, loves parying mantii, whatever. She learns that something she found unattractive before was actually something she could learn to love when she actually gave it a deeper look.
Is this really that different from a different gender? One reason I am unattracted to men at large is because I attribute to them by way of stereotype general traits to them I don’t like. Not arbitrarily, mind; I have a reason for all of it. By and large, though, the only men I find emotionally attractive are those I find physically repugnant. Go figure.
Neukoken, I like your argument. I don’t entirely agree with it, but well put.
As far as Eddie Murphy goes, (and you may have pointed this out in jest anyway), he’s a comedian and what he did was for entertainment purposes. At least as far as I know, he didn’t try to actually live his life like that, and that was what I was getting at.
“I’ve also known people for whom homosexuality was an endless source of misery; for example, they’re physically attracted to men, but are unable to find a man with whom they are compatible, and have fantastic chemistry with women. Those people should make efforts to become what they want to be. If they want to be straight, or want to learn to like the gender-related habits of men, they should do what they have to toward that end.”
I’m straight, I have good relationships with male friends, I’m attracted to women and it took me a while, but I finally found a woman I was compatible with. Should I have given up hope sooner and tried to be gay? If I did, and could do that, I would suggest that I was bisexual to begin with, and thus was able to choose between two genders. Not being bisexual, the possibility of “going gay” was never an option.
But I agree that we should all be who we want to be, and we shouldn’t be made to feel inadequate or uncomfortable for it.
I won’t say it’s impossible for someone to change their “habits”, or more specifically for a gay person to behave straight, I just don’t think you will change the deep down core of that person that is homosexual. I don’t know if there’s any valid studies on the subject, but I believe that attraction/sexuality is a chemical reaction in the body, something I don’t think you could change just by thinking about it (and I am a very firm believer in the whole mind over matter thing, being an avid martial artist). Much like changing your skin color would require cosmetics or some really serious surgery or gene therapy, I think the same thing would be required in altering someone’s sexuality.
Monkeys.
Yes, Toby, I was just kidding about Eddie Murphy; that is, I brought it up to insert levity. If you haven’t, you should see the sketch; it’s hi-larious. “What a silly negro!”
As for attraction being a chemical thing, I can’t argue that completely; science has isolated pheromones as a partial cause of sexual attraction. The thing is, the way we react to them is different for everyone. You could reasonably say that a gay person is simply someone who reacts more favorably to the pheremones of his or her own gender than to the opposite. Doing that, though, simply boils sexual attraction down to a combination of one’s senses of smell and sight. This may also be relevant to the notion that women are less visually stimulated than men — it certainly supports the idea — but that’s a bit more of a tangent than I’m prepared to embark on.
The thing is, our reactions to the things we observe through our senses can change over time, though. Beer and caviar come to mind, as both are often described as an “acquired taste.” Nobody likes their first sip of beer (or most people certainly don’t, at any rate), but a person can learn to like a stimulus they don’t initially. Sure, it’s probably a bit more difficult with pheremones, which most people aren’t aware they can smell, than with alcohol, but how difficult it is isn’t the issue here as much as that it can be done.
That said, I can accept, to a point, that when sexual attraction is boiled down to reaction to stimulus, but I don’t really want to follow that line of reasoning much further, because I know that when you follow it to its logical conclusion, you’ve reduced all of human experience to a series of electrical impulses, and at that point, nothing we do has meaning.
Another well put point, Nekouken (sorry about misspelling that before).
I guess you could boil the human experience down to a bunch of electrical impulses, and if you do, then nothing has meaning. But, then we’d have to debate what the meaning of “meaning” is, and I think my head already hurts from pondering it. And we’d also have to think about how and if free will and choice come into play. I would suggest that they do, but the end result is that they are electrical impulses or whatever, but whether the e.p. causes the “free will”, or “choice” happens and then the e.p. takes place is another brain damaging thought. And perhaps some things are completely reactionary and not completely contollable, while others can be affected by choice. And if that’s the case, does it differ from person to person? I can’t stop my fingernails from growing, but I can cut them when they get too long. I am heterosexual, but theoretically I could force myself to be in a homosexual relationship. Would I “learn to like it”? If an opportunity presented itself, would I revert to heterosexuality? And if so, what does that mean about the choice of sexuality? Would choosing to go back be just another choice, or something uncontrollable? I guess we could study what goes on in prisons and what happens to prisoners who were in homosexual relationships in jail once they are free. Hmm. I think I’m going to stop thinking now.
Monkeys.
I suppose I’m just being a spoilsport, but I think it’s worth pointing out here that while you can smell scents that aren’t consciously detectable, the human olfactory apparatus simply lacks the sensors to detect pheromones. We as a species are blind to that influence. (Fortunately – otherwise, can you imagine the fun Disney’s engineers would have with us in waiting lines? Shades of “Dream Park”‘s Neutral Scent!)
Actually Jonathan, humans do produce pheromones, and we can detect them.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993835
http://www.athenainstitute.com/discovery.html
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/humannature/article.jsp?id=99994362&sub=Gender%20and%20reproduction
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14644633&dopt=Abstract
It would be quite interesting/amusing to have the Disney Imagineer team muck with that, though.
Monkeys
Hmm. Sorry those aren’t clickable links. How does one do that?
Speaking of scents, though, anyone ever read “Perfume”? I don’t remember the author, but I had to read it in college for a fantasy lit class. Essentially, this strange guy with an overly sensitive nose gets into the perfume business and figures out how to concoct scents to make people do things (this was set in the past, but I don’t remember when). He also sort of suffers from some sort of trauma or dimensia at the fact that he can’t smell his own scent. Anywhat, at some point, he starts killing virgins in order to try to duplicate their intoxicating scent and he gets caught. Just before his execution, he puts on a scent that causes everyone in attendance to have an orgy and he escapes and later starts wearing a scent that causes people to completely ignore and not notice him. Very bizarre, but oddly entertaining.
Monkeys.
Toby: “But, then we’d have to debate what the meaning of “meaning” is, and I think my head already hurts from pondering it.”
This is exactly why I don’t like following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion; without a great deal of intellectual compromise, it’s very demoralizing.
Also, that “Perfume” story sounds interesting. It’s not a new concept — both Batman comics and the Kids in the Hall have tackled similar ideas — but it’s not one that gets a lot of play, and it seems it would lend itself to some fun plot twists.
Yeah, “Perfume” was pretty interesting, and it’s a fairly old publication, if I remember. I don’t recall the Kids in the Hall skits you are referencing, could you help me on that one?
Monkeys
The sketch (which was kind of gross) was about a guy whose sweat had the most heavenly scent in existence. He worked for a generic company, and when his boss discovered this, he set him up with a treadmill and drip cups under his armpits to bottle and sell the stuff. It made everything in life better and everybody exposed to it was happier; his boss’s hair even grew back. At the end of the sketch, they had to discontinue the product because everybody was just sitting around being happy and national productivity had decreased exponentially since his sweat went on the market.
AAh. I remember that one now. Thanks.
Monkeys