If you could choose your...

[Argus]

If being gay is a choice, which it most obviously is, than the reason why boys are the victims of abuse within the church is because of their homosexual perpetrators.

I am absolutely not following your logic here...

[On Guard for Thee]

Not at all. Like I've already stated, it's why 99.9% of incidents involve boys and not girls.

Once again you miss the point. There is a big difference between sexual assault and homosexuality.

[eyeball]

Only because you're choosing to see it that way.

Not really. No one is gay or straight, and they certainly don't choose their place on the scale.

That's a useless throw away line. Some people have more to deal with.

Doubtful. Most people just want to be 'normal'.

People just need a broad enough definition of normal that it encompasses them. We're all Earthlings for example. If that doesn't cut it then you're probably some kind of alien trans-species mutant.

[Michael Hardner]

It is funny watching progressives twist and spin when they realize the consequences of their own rhetoric.

I suppose it could be funny. Who is "progressive" on this one ? You and Cyber, or me ?

I'm glad this one doesn't align into left/right so easily. Too boring when that happens.

I don't know what the "science says" and I would not trust any such research to be unbiased enough to be useful.

I don't understand that one.

... get hot and bothered when people logically suggest that it must not be a choice because no one would willingly choose to put up with the social sanctions on being gay in some societies if it was a choice.

I guess you think I'm not progressive then.

A science based discussion would acknowledge that it is likely both biology and a choice depending on the person.

Too bad you said here that you don't believe in science.

[Michael Hardner]

No. You are missing the point. You are assuming that straight people have more privileges than gay people.

That is a faulty assumption as cyber mentioned

I think that it's just common sense that that is true.

Privileges that straight people have, that LGBTQ do not, from the top of my head:

- Travel to any place they like with their partner and be welcomed with open arms

- Freedom from violence when expressing affection with their partners

- Adoption of children with the same scrutiny as a straight couple

- Acceptance into religious communities

- Ability to talk about their partners in casual conversation in any workplace

[cybercoma]

I'm not remotely familiar with the science behind this. Are you saying that the idea of sexual preference as an innate part of one's biology from birth is not intellectually sound ?

"us vs them" is a politicization of what I [currently] see as a biological fact.

Right, because I don't think there is such a thing as choosing that.

I'm saying the binary doesn't exist. It's a heuristic device that's wrong and causes problems conceptually and in practice, both socially and politically.

[Argus]

People just need a broad enough definition of normal that it encompasses them. We're all Earthlings for example.

Cite?

[cybercoma]

Normal is the sexual orientation required to procreate, I would say. That doesn't mean that being gay isn't natural or that it's bad, it simply means that it's abnormal and non typical.

I guess getting a blowjob is pretty abnormal to you then?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm saying the binary doesn't exist. It's a heuristic device that's wrong and causes problems conceptually and in practice, both socially and politically.

I would say both takes on it cause problems conceptually and in practice. The physical world, including biology, pretty much never fits into the frameworks that humans develop to conceptualize it.

Making sexuality a 'choice', in our thinking of it, may address the point that some people are more unsure of their preferences than others but I still think it attributes too much biology to free will.

But, ok, if some individuals "choose" their orientation, for lack of a better term, is it so disgusting for some of us (most of us) to assume otherwise when constructing a hypothetical choice for discussion purposes ? Especially if the discussion we're setting up is starting with the consideration that life is worse for LGBTQ worldwide.

[cybercoma]

I would say both takes on it cause problems conceptually and in practice. The physical world, including biology, pretty much never fits into the frameworks that humans develop to conceptualize it.

Making sexuality a 'choice', in our thinking of it, may address the point that some people are more unsure of their preferences than others but I still think it attributes too much biology to free will.

But, ok, if some individuals "choose" their orientation, for lack of a better term, is it so disgusting for some of us (most of us) to assume otherwise when constructing a hypothetical choice for discussion purposes ? Especially if the discussion we're setting up is starting with the consideration that life is worse for LGBTQ worldwide.

Choice is completely irrelevant. That's been my point from the beginning. Any discussion about whether people choose their sexuality or not is inherently intolerant. It does not matter one way or the other. You want to talk about how life is worse for LGBTQ community, fine. When someone says, "nobody in their right mind would choose that," you should recognize that it's insulting.

Particularly when it comes from a poster who can't get his narrow little mind around the fact that screwing children has nothing to do with homosexuality. This person has a history of posting mind-numbingly ignorant and insulting garbage about gay people for years. Even in this thread, he's still comparing sexual exploitation of children, who are physically androgynous, to sexual attraction of post-pubescent males and females, who have fully developed into male and female bodies.

My point in the last thread and now, continues to be that you're trying to whitewash the comments by Shady, which were indeed meant to be insulting and derogatory.

And if you step back for a moment and think about it, asking "why would anyone choose to be gay?" is like asking in the 1960s, "why would anyone choose to marry outside their race?" There comes a point where the intellectual masturbation starts to ignore the human impact of such comments and how they degrade others. People who married outside their race faced all kinds of problems, through absolutely no fault of their own. They face problems because knuckle-dragging neanderthals couldn't accept something that had no effect on them whatsoever. So here we have Shady with the same kind of garbage; yet, you're here whitewashing his comments and defending this harmful rhetoric.

It surprised me because I didn't expect that from you of all posters. That's all. I don't have any interest "debating" something that isn't a debate. Sexuality is not a binary and people who continue to be closed minded bigots about others' personal relationships should be called out for their garbage.

[Michael Hardner]

Choice is completely irrelevant. That's been my point from the beginning. Any discussion about whether people choose their sexuality or not is inherently intolerant.

I disagree completely. Also your argument seems to have been that if we don't allow the possibility of 'choice' then we're opening the door for intolerance, not that we're being intolerant.

When someone says, "nobody in their right mind would choose that," you should recognize that it's insulting.

I recognized the term from a discussion I had with gay friends, so no I didn't recognize that.

Particularly when it comes from a poster who can't get his narrow little mind around the fact that screwing children has nothing to do with homosexuality. This person has a history of posting mind-numbingly ignorant and insulting garbage about gay people for years. Even in this thread, he's still comparing sexual exploitation of children, who are physically androgynous, to sexual attraction of post-pubescent males and females, who have fully developed into male and female bodies.

My point in the last thread and now, continues to be that you're trying to whitewash the comments by Shady, which were indeed meant to be insulting and derogatory.

Sorry, but I don't look for reasons to distrust statements by people. At least I don't think I do. Shady could be anti-gay, prejudiced against gay people - you can find something in his arguments to bring the inconsistency back to him.

"why would anyone choose to marry outside their race?"

That would have been a pertinent question at that time. The people who had to endure harassment for their free choices are commended for the path they chose.

So here we have Shady with the same kind of garbage; yet, you're here whitewashing his comments and defending this harmful rhetoric.

Shady's points of view can be addressed through the arguments. Those that can't are just values of his that you and I may not share. It doesn't matter to me that people who don't feel comfortable with LGBTQ, people who hate them, and utter racists exist, or that they come here.

Those attitudes will be changed in an atmosphere of righteous patience, and moral persistence ... or they won't. I have seen enough change in a few short decades that I feel confident that I'm on the winning side. I don't need to be a sore winner.

It surprised me because I didn't expect that from you of all posters.

Objectivity ? I can handle it when people come on here with attitudes that I don't agree with, that I find abhorrent or just 100% wrong. It doesn't bother me, and I can find some things in common with them sometimes too.

[Argus]

Shady's points of view can be addressed through the arguments.

Ah, but accusation and condemnation are so much more bracing to the ego of the morally righteous up there on their pedestal...

[TimG]

Too bad you said here that you don't believe in science.

A complete misrepresentation of what I said. I don't think that something is "science" just because it is in an academic paper and that our scientific institutions are filled with people that think they have a duty to advance their pet social causes by creating propaganda masquerading as science.

My argument draws on the known science when it comes to understanding less controversial behaviors (which implies their is less motivation to manipulate the results to suit a pet cause).

Edited March 8, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

A complete misrepresentation of what I said.

You said this:

I don't know what the "science says" and I would not trust any such research to be unbiased enough to be useful.

My argument draws on the known science when it comes to understanding less controversial behaviors (which implies their is less motivation to manipulate the results to suit a pet cause).

Both you and Cyber don't seem to want to have open discussions. You say you don't trust what the science says, and he feels that the idea of inherent biological sexuality is intolerant to discuss.

[TimG]

Both you and Cyber don't seem to want to have open discussions. You say you don't trust what the science says.

Again, not what I said. I don't trust the people who would choose to produce research on this topic. I do trust science if you can find analogues to other biological characteristics which don't come with the same political baggage

[Michael Hardner]

I don't trust the people who would choose to produce research on this topic.

So you've pretty much decided that there's no such thing as an expert to you haven't you ? That's a celebration of self-knowledge in my books. Like a birthday party for one.

[TimG]

So you've pretty much decided that there's no such thing as an expert to you haven't you ? That's a celebration of self-knowledge in my books. Like a birthday party for one.

Again, not what I said. I said I don't trust research done on this topic because, chances are, it is driven by ideology rather than data BUT I do trust research on topics that do not have the same political baggage. Fortunately, biology tends to follow patterns and there is no reason why research into other biological patterns could not apply to this topic. That was my basis for claiming a spectrum rather that a binary duality. Edited March 8, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Again, not what I said. I said I don't trust research done on this topic because, chances are, it is driven by ideology rather than data BUT I do trust research on topics that do not have the same political baggage.

Right... I meant to add "on this topic" to my encapsulation. You don't believe any experts on this topic.

[Smallc]

I guess getting a blowjob is pretty abnormal to you then?

Why are you so offended by the idea that a natural but abnormal activity exists?

[cybercoma]

he feels that the idea of inherent biological sexuality is intolerant to discuss.

You've either not understood what I'm saying or you're being intellectually dishonest. I never said anything about inherent biological sexuality being intolerant. Not once. I said it's an irrelevant point that's brought up by people who find homosexuality disgusting, i.e., Shady, as a way to feel better about LGBTQ rights. It goes, "those disgusting freaks can't help it. They're just born that way." I'm exaggerating only slightly for emphasis. Your point is that nobody would choose to be gay because they face massive social intolerance. Instead of putting the focus on that social intolerance, here it's being framed as "those poor people don't have a choice. Who would want to suffer like that?" I'm telling you that many in the LGBTQ aren't suffering at all and those who are suffer thanks to intolerance from people exactly like Shady—people who think homosexuals prey on children.

The fact of biological predisposition or choice is completely irrelevant. It's all based on the false assumption that sexuality is a dichotomy: you're either gay or straight. That's not even remotely close to reality, as I already pointed to with regards to Kinsey's research and later research that expanded on those ideas. The idea of choice or biological predisposition are nothing more than red herrings for the kind of foul intolerance and bigotry that Shady and others express for the LGBTQ community on a regular basis.

Thus, the question about choice is utterly irrelevant and nothing more than thinly veiled bigotry. It's insulting and derogatory. If you don't see why, then there's not much else I can do to hold your hand through my arguments. However, I would ask that you don't put words in my mouth or make up arguments for me that I didn't make.

[cybercoma]

Why are you so offended by the idea that a natural but abnormal activity exists?

I'm not offended by it. Why are you dodging my question? You said sexual activity that doesn't procreate is unnatural and therefore abnormal. So I'm asking you if that logic applies to oral sex. It's not meant for procreation. Does that mean it's abnormal?

[cybercoma]

Ah, but accusation and condemnation are so much more bracing to the ego of the morally righteous up there on their pedestal...

You still crying about having your disgusting views challenged? Maybe try a bit harder to get me banned.

[Smallc]

I'm not offended by it. Why are you dodging my question? You said sexual activity that doesn't procreate is unnatural and therefore abnormal. So I'm asking you if that logic applies to oral sex. It's not meant for procreation. Does that mean it's abnormal?

It actually probably is. Certainly unnatural. I actually didn't say what you're saying I did. I said with a sexual partner you can't procreate with.

[WestCoastRunner]

It actually probably is. Certainly unnatural. I actually didn't say what you're saying I did. I said with a sexual partner you can't procreate with.

If it has to do with procreation, why wasn't this gene that causes males to be gay not have been eradicated by now? There must be a reason to have these gay men in our population. Perhaps to encourage tolerance? Another theory is that women who have gay sons are more prolific at making babies, so maybe there's that! Bring on those gay babies!

[Michael Hardner]

Your quote from a few pages back:

"Any discussion about whether people choose their sexuality or not is inherently intolerant."

My assessment of that statement: "he feels that the idea of inherent biological sexuality is intolerant to discuss."

Your most recent quote:

You've either not understood what I'm saying or you're being intellectually dishonest. I never said anything about inherent biological sexuality being intolerant.

What am I missing ? And what is with this lack of trust - have I been dishonest here ?