"A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it's a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn't matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not."...Does he want truth to win out or something more like good policy or political pragmatism?
"Cynthia did not put adequate thought into the ramifications of her words, and it is going to be used when some kid comes out and their parents force them into some ex-gay camp while she's off drinking cocktails at fancy parties," [said Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen.] "When people say it's a choice, they are green-lighting an enormous amount of abuse because if it's a choice, people will try to influence and guide young people to what they perceive as the right choice."
By the way, I vividly remember back around 1990, the progressive gay-rights-type people I knew were intent upon portraying sexual orientation as a choice. I won't name the famous lefty who snapped at me for entertaining the notion that homosexuality might have a biological basis: If it exists at the biological level, it will be perceived as a disease and people will try to cure it. That was really the same point as Besen's, oddly enough, in that it was about acceptance as opposed to treatment.
पोस्ट्स
१४२ टिप्पण्या:
It sounds like she's bi instead of gay. So was Freddie Mercury.
"It sounds like she's bi instead of gay."
At the link, you'll see she denies that.
.. while she's off drinking cocktails..
nttawwt.. not at all.
Daddy, is Happy Toast gay?
What is gay, Liam?
It's when people like sex.
Then yes, Happy Toast is probably gay.
Here is the story of Happy Toast who drew a cartoon. Another gent printed the picture and presented it to two children celebrating a birthday at a restaurant. The children laughed so hard they could not control themselves. They fell about the place as children sometimes do.
But the children's laughter was contagious. That something so stupid is so funny to children is itself very funny but the attention that it drew, the waitress, the other customers, is hilarious. This is the cartoon that caused the kids to lose it.
So you see, according to Liam if you like sex then you're probably gay.
I don't base my arguments for queer equality on whether it is a choice or not so in terms of the arguments I might be making it doesn't matter to me how Nixon wants to describe her own sexuality.
Anyway, I'm guessing sexuality is more complicated than lumping people into a few narrow boxes (i.e. gay/straight/bi) or using a simple dichotomy like choice/not-choice.
I've seen this same sort of assertion a few times at radical feminist blogs.
Basically it feeds into lesbian power fantasies of converting hot straight women into the fold. Radfem dogma is pretty much nothing but lesbian power fantasy with a layer of victimology to try and disguise it.
If there were a cure for gayness, I would take it. I would also slip it into the water supply just so idiots like Wayne Besen would have to get a real job.
It's a matter of percentages. And, it's INHERITED. (Awhile back I remember reading that women carry the gene forward on their mitochondria. It's inherited from the mother. Even if the mom is heterosexual.)
It also doesn't matter. Homosexuality is like genius. Only a few are "chosen." Everybody else's genetics remains ordinary.
Why are gays attacked? I have no idea.
We're also watching marriages fall apart. Lots of people cohabitate without getting married. There really is no accurate way to gather up statistics that reflect individuality.
Probably, what's more surprising is how early lots of kids KNOW if they're interested in the opposite sex, or not.
And, what is EVIL is INTOLERANCE. Once you get over that hurdle,you can ignore all the sign-carrying lunatics.
It is a perverted sickness either way.
Anyway, I'm guessing sexuality is more complicated than lumping people into a few narrow boxes (i.e. gay/straight/bi) or using a simple dichotomy like choice/not-choice.
-------------
The church gets a lot of flack from queers for claiming they can 'cure' homosexuality. If what you say is true, it seems like that would be a possible in at least some cases.
But really the original theory on homosexuality is the most sensible - it is a psychological malady with roots in childhood trauma.
It really dismays me that so many men fetishize lesbians. Sure, it's pleasant to watch girl-on-girl porn, no pesky d*cks getting in the way, but as more and more women become lesbians it gets more and more difficult for non-Alpha men to find women.
this is a good example of why lesbians and gay men should not be lumped together. they are two distinct species. women may choose to "identify" themselves as lesbian, possibly until the right man comes along (or vice versa). gay men, on the other hand (unless they allow themselves to be forced by social/family pressures to appear to be with a woman) are completely "oriented", sexually and romantically, toward other men..period.
the existence of true 'bisexuals' is highly debatable.
It should be mentioned that gays always pushed for the genetics only explanation because that was the one that would make it easier to break into certain institutions, like the Boy Scouts.
No chance of your teenage son catching the gay from his scoutmaster if that was the case.
But really the original theory on homosexuality is the most sensible - it is a psychological malady with roots in childhood trauma.
This is too dumb to respond to on substantive grounds, but I will note that I get the distinct impression that the fight for gay marriage is being helped by the extremists who are opposed to gay marriage who make such obviously outlandish arguments.
Some sort of civil union compromise might have been possible at some point as a way for the more moderate anti-gay forces to prevent full marriage equality from happening if they could have kept the anti-gay whack-jobs tucked out of sight, but now it's obvious that we are going to have gay marriage in all fifty states, it's just a matter of time.
This is too dumb to respond to on substantive grounds, but I will note that I get the distinct impression that the fight for gay marriage is being helped by the extremists who are opposed to gay marriage who make such obviously outlandish arguments.
-----------
No, what you really mean is you have no argument on substantive grounds. Period.
I didn't say anything for or against gay marriage.
I don't see why people don't see the obvious: Men and women experience gayness differently.
Just about every bi man turns out gay in the end. Just about every bi girl turns out straight in the end. You never hear of the "LUG" phenomenon (lesbian until graduation) in men but it is very common in high school and college women. You never hear of men being gay for political reasons, or because the opposite sex treated them badly, but women are gay for those exact stated reasons all the time. The horniest male would never kiss or fondle another male for the sole purpose of getting the attention of females, but the opposite happens all the time (it is the core of the Girls Gone Wild phenomenon).
So this is what is confusing everyone: Male gayness is primarily not a choice, but female gayness primarily is. It is such a simple answer staring everyone in the face but everyone refuses to see it because they are too emotionally and politically tied to the answer being one way or the other for both sexes.
polacko,
the existence of true 'bisexuals' is highly debatable.
So, do "fake" bisexual men suck dildos or something?
It really is fun to see homosexuals get all judgmental on other people's sexuality. Ever read what Dan Savage thinks of bisexual men?
You know, all that 60's blather about the continuum of sexual expression, polyamory, yada, yada. Well, to hell with that!
We can't let the complexity of human sexual expression get in the way of our Neo-Calvinist faggot friends, can we?
The whole "choice" question on the left concerning gay identity stems from the fact that most "queer theorists" are rooted in postmodernism and poststructuralism, and so they favor philosophical approaches which denounce or deny anything which can be seen as "essentializing." Naturally, then, gay identity poses a problem because if it is biological, then it is in some way essential or determinative, and their philosophical instinct is to reject that possibility. That's why they embrace the term "queer" because it's a way of embracing a kind of rebellion.
But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met (her fiance) Christine and I fell in love and lust with her.
I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt..
"I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you"
Dylan
Ann says:
"By the way, I vividly remember back around 1990, the progressive gay-rights-type people I knew were intent upon portraying sexual orientation as a choice. "
You know, when the progressives have one of these Emily Latella moments, it sure makes it hard on people that just want to be politically correct.
So this is what is confusing everyone: Male gayness is primarily not a choice, but female gayness primarily is. It is such a simple answer staring everyone in the face but everyone refuses to see it because they are too emotionally and politically tied to the answer being one way or the other for both sexes.
------------
That theory is silly. Have you ever heard of a bull dyke.
@kurt,
Yes, and postmodernism rejects binary oppositions, too.
Like, you know, "Straight" & "Gay".
Of course, unless, you're trying to get your life-partner on your insurance or browbeat a Catholic adoption agency.
Then, binary oppositions are all hunky-dory!
I dunno. There doesn't seem to be one clear path.
I know men and women about whom it can readily be said they were gay from birth, that they are the way they were created, and that their sexual identity is gene-based.
I know other, including one in my extended family, for whom their sexual identity seems to be a choice, or a series of choices.
In that instance, the young woman happily dated men, then in college announced she was bi and dated men and women, and after graduating dated women exclusively.
She was in a series of committed relationships with women, the longest lasting longer than 20 years.
Then last year she left her partner and announced that she now preferred men and really, really wants to date men until she finds a husband to marry.
Her family loves and accepts her and has never pressured her to choose one identity or the other.
So what to believe? I don't think gay and lesbian people can be lumped into one category.
For some, it seems that they are hard-wired from birth to be gay; for others it's a choice, and choices allow change.
The gay borg doesn't like it when people leave.
The whole "choice" question on the left concerning gay identity stems from the fact that most "queer theorists" are rooted in postmodernism and poststructuralism, and so they favor philosophical approaches which denounce or deny anything which can be seen as "essentializing." Naturally, then, gay identity poses a problem because if it is biological, then it is in some way essential or determinative, and their philosophical instinct is to reject that possibility.
Yep. See: Judith Butler.
Everybody is right.
@Yashu & Kurt,
You both are not being radical enough in your postmodernism.
No postmodernist queer theoretician would permit the postulation of an essential vs accidental (non-essential) distinction exists in reality.
To say that modern science thinks that homosexuality may be a "hard-wired" state means that one variety of discourse (psychology) makes that claim.
But to claim that scientific discourses give us certain knowledge of an external world --- Oh puh-leeze! Science is just one more example of a hetero-normanative hegemonic discourse.
Geez, I read so much of that postmodern stuff in grad school I can talk the lingo like I actually believe that shit.
The gay borg doesn't like it when people leave.
Nor does the straight borg.
Young Hegelian: I read a lot of it in grad. school, too, but haven't bothered with it in more than fourteen years now, and don't miss it. So my excuse--such as it is--is that I'm seriously out of practice in that regard.
Yashu did cite Judith Butler, though, who is famous for all sorts of gender bending anyway. And your first response to my comment reminded me of Marjorie Garber's book on Bisexuality. While Garber wasn't the unreadable postmodernist type, the book was certainly informed by a lot of the standard premises of that discourse.
Nixon stirred the identity politics pot further when she explained in a follow-up interview with The Daily Beast this week that she purposefully rejected identifying herself as bisexual even though her history suggested it was an accurate term.
"I don't pull out the "bisexual" word because nobody likes the bisexuals. Everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals," she said. "But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met (her fiance) Christine and I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt."
Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/entertainment/television/138247409.html?cmpid=15585797#ixzz1kpKgdYvw
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else
Geez, I read so much of that postmodern stuff in grad school I can talk the lingo like I actually believe that shit.
Heh, Young Hegelian, tell me about it. I'm still in the bowels of the labyrinth.
..the question, so far unanswered by science, is often used by religious conservatives, including GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum and former candidate Michelle Bachman, to argue..
As opposed to.. I don't know.. leave the country?
If only we lived in world where collectivist politics didn't rule the debate and the reality. But they do, socially and economically, and they especially do among activist--a.k.a base-- conservatives and progressives alike.
For my part, I now think President Obama is going to win re-election (though without my vote). And, at this point, I think it's extremely unlikely that the president elected in November 2016 will be particularly different from Obama.
So it goes. Sow, reap.
I'll fix Nixon..
Get me Archibald Cox.
Seriously thou.. aren't gay pride parades about expression?
Here is a gay woman expressing herself and being told to shut up.. dosent that send a wrong signal to the young gay and straight alike?
I'm reminded of Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Willow. "Hello, gay now!"
el polacko said...
this is a good example of why lesbians and gay men should not be lumped together. they are two distinct species.
Haz said: So what to believe? I don't think gay and lesbian people can be lumped into one category.
We used to have just two genders. I hope we don't need four now. Individuality is fine but it really doesn't fit well with these austere times. OTOH, if we could just stop sexualizing gender we'd be better off.
At some point the activist groups start to sound like Brokaw..
'We are extremely uncomfortable with Nixons extended comments that could be used by the right for political gain and to compromise what we are trying to do'...
save those kids from Michele Bachmann's husband.
anybody seen Palladian?
It would be helpful to hear his opinion..
Another way of observing the reaction to Nixon's comments would be to read here how the Governor's recall in Wisconsin is thought to distract/detract from Obamas reelection.. if you follow me.
The value of Obamas reelection/future gay clarity overshadows all others.
A seemingly narrow mindedness of purpose start to take effect.
It doesn't much matter to me; there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, whatever the cause.
But it seems likely to be biological in origin.
Observe also the reaction to the 9/11 attacks.. where the value of our security (ratified by an expansive never again/never forget) on one hand.. comes into conflict with some of some of our most cherished freedoms.. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..
How can activist tell Nixon that her right to express her opinion, about herself no less, should be abrogated or muted on account of a possible yet to be cognisable victim.
I dont know.. alls I know is these things should be argued and debated passionately but civilly.
Very interesting. It's all about justification of whatever people want to do.
As pointed out, the one and only proper belief allowed will have ramifications, especially on indoctrination and recruitment of the under aged.
And also the men in women's bodies, and the women in mens's bodies, government funded surgery industry for anyone who wants to try it out may also come into question.
This is enough to drive a good psychologist mad.
Well.. It seems to me that once sex stopped being the only requirement for procreation.. the door was open for other avenues..
(I love my mixed metaphors.. I probably get more credit if I didn't use'm so much.. Professor is not a fan)
Remember when Clinton testified that the door was open?
Or was it Betty Curry?
Meaning.. look, the door was open.. how could there be any sex going on?
Mixed metaphors are like an ugly memory chip..
My mentor at my old job used to say that all the time.. the drawings had to be elegant because that was our product.. the drawings sold the client.
speaking of elegance.. if not of sound surely of other attributes.
Madonna is going to attempt to come to power in yet another decade.
Here she sings one of my favorites.. Deeper And Deeper.
Homosexuality may be a choice, but homophobia clearly is not. I'm gonna try and get handicap parking.
Girlfriend is Better..
Sexual (li da di)
Unexpected Lovers
wv sappinen ; how dare you call this music sappy
I just breezed through these comments. When are you going to do something about your mobies, Althouse? Either that or do away with your bullshit about good faith?
Jealous Of My Boogie
The one problem with the biology argument is that, if it's not true - and I don't think it is for most cases, then it's psychological.
That makes it no less a choice than if it were biological, but it would explain how some homosexuals, Evelyn Waugh comes to mind, are "cured". Like, however, depression or other identifiable mental conditions, the cure is long, difficult, and anything but sure-fire (at least for now).
What's going to be interesting to watch is if Ms Nixon gets the Clarence Thomas/Sarah Palin treatment by "queers"* like Hatman (or Lefties, in general) for speaking the unspeakable.
el polacko said...
this is a good example of why lesbians and gay men should not be lumped together.
Yes, but that's sexist. Don't you know men and women are the same?
* Last I heard saying queer was like using Zero's middle name. Outsiders aren't allowed to use it
I've told you, and told you, and told you, there was a bigger conversation to be had here than you or any other gay supporters - be they gay or not - were willing to have. An honest conversation. Especially with Real Men™, who won't give their bullshit the time of day (TMR). Gays think it's better to engage someone like you, or Cynthia Nixon, who they think they can push around, or influence to change her mind - and, thus, change reality.
Which, of course, can't be changed.
The true male point of view, and way of addressing it, has value - as long as they are good. And, as such, real men don't deserve what they get in return, which is lies (depravity). The rest wait until they think it's safe to say something, which isn't bravery at all. (Cynthia Nixon is on a professional upswing through her portrayal of a cancer patient.) Truth-tellers know it's never safe.
So what IS the truth?
There is nothing special about gays. They are deviants, exhibiting behavior undeserving of "pride" parades, and all the rest of the pumped up malarky, designed to deceive. Being "bad" is fun - I get it. But the gay way is still simply a rejection of Christianity, and that's as stupid (and boring) a reason for doing anything as I've ever run across.
Real men are born heathens - no need for ostentatious displays - so, being stuck with the rest of these confused ninnies, who - right or wrong - will ALWAYS fight back, "cruel to be kind" is the only way forward available. We can't be bothered if they like it or not, but to state the obvious as honestly, and forcefully, as humanly possible and hope - at whatever range of comprehension they possess - some of these other animals will understand:
We should be ethical for it's own sake.
And that's all there is to it.
Cynthia Nixon should be in trouble for her wooden performance in Wit. But in the theater gays and lesbians are held to a different standard. Like no standard at all. Yes, it's good to be more than equal.
"There is nothing special about gays. They are deviants”
There are many people that feel this way. And you are losing. It won’t be long until it is widely accepted that a statement like this is no more acceptable than the most racist or sexist statements.
and it is going to be used when some kid comes out and their parents force ??? Why ? if she a PHD from Harvard or Yale? she is only a third class actress who was in the right place at the right time.So who cares about what she says.
many commenters here agree wrongly with her. parents wont say some dud at althouse says...
Why is it we continue to feel the need to discuss and debate the issues 1% of the population over and over and over?
We got real problems and this is so not one of them
That said, Nixon has a right to say what she wants and that is all that matters.
You either like dick or you don't. For a certain percentage of lesbians, it isn't the dick, it's the asshole behind it that they don't like.
I just wish people would stop using "identify" as an intransitive verb.
Dr. Drew said it's well documented that a huge percentage of strippers and prostitutes were molested or abused as children, so it isn't all nature.
If sexual orientation is innate (which is the way the scientific evidence seems to be pointing) then the far more likely scenario is that homosexuality will be prevented rather than cured. If/when it can be detected before birth some people will consider "gay fetuses" defective and abort them. (It will be interesting to see how these event affect those whose attitudes toward both homosexuality and abortion are in conflict over this situation. Abortion for sex selection is already generating some of this type of cognitive dissonance.) Of course we can look farther into the future when we all get to choose the characteristics of our offspring from a menu. How many people will check the gay box.
How dare Nixon not toe the PC line on gayness!! She had no choice in being gay. Doesn't she know she was forced into gayness by some yet to be identified genetic force?
The APA has agreed that homosexuality is treatable.
There are groing numbers of persons who have sought and obtained treatment from establishment dissidents, because there is no gay gene.
How about this?
For some people it's a choice, for some it's not.
That's what my non scientific lifetime common sense sampling tells me.
One of my ex-wife's sisters recently declared her gayness, after 30 plus years of marriage. She is a New Ager Crack would love, dream catchers, crystals, etc.
She has one of those timer genes where your straight for a certain period of time, and then the timer goes off and you become gay. Genetics are truly fascinating. (Fortunately, she never had any kids.)
Some people are exclusively heterosexual throughout their lives, and some are exclusively homosexual. Some are truly bisexual and some try a little of one type of sexual behavior and spend most of their time with another. Some switch, maybe more than once.
An observer with no political axe to grind would conclude that given the spectrum of behavior, their might be a spectrum of underlying causes for the behavior.
An ideologue would insist that one size fits all.
Doesn't Cynthia understand that the science is settled?!?!? Gayness is genetically predetermined for all of us. How dare she say otherwise!
It's about emotions and feelings and personal well being. The only thing that bothers me about it is the idea that the government should steer people in certain directions for the "well being" of society. As if the government doesn't have its hands full trying to solve all the other problems it has taken on.
Lefty identity politics always end with the same argument: whatever is good for their politics is the mantra and anyone unwilling to pledge allegiance is a bigot. The fact that the mantra is simultaneously contradictory for different purposes doesn't bother them a bit even though it proves them dishonest idiots to anyone with even a basic level of integrity.
She spoke the truth about homosexuality so of course she must be crucified.
Kchiker said...
There are many people that feel this way. And you are losing. It won’t be long until it is widely accepted that a statement like this is no more acceptable than the most racist or sexist statements.
So in other words, you want dissent silenced.
Lovely.
Kchiker,
You are losing. It won’t be long until it is widely accepted that a statement like this is no more acceptable than the most racist or sexist statements.
Somebody's not following the trend lines in contemporary thought very well:
The 60s - like claims to racism and sexism - are over.
YoungHegelian 12:00 AM
"Ever read what Dan Savage thinks of bisexual men?"
No, what has he said?
isn't any act of consensual sex, a choice?
She has one of those timer genes where your straight for a certain period of time, and then the timer goes off and you become gay.
I think middle-aged woman have a harder time finding a new mate than men do. Taking another woman becomes an option.
El polacko and Kevin up high in the comments nailed it. The cause of gayness differs between men and women.
"Radfem dogma is pretty much nothing but lesbian power fantasy with a layer of victimology to try and disguise it."
I feel a Sweeping Generalization coming on...
"[blank] dogma is pretty much nothing but a power fantasy with an overlay of victimology for validation and disguise."
For fun, see how many ideologies can fill in that blank and still hold true.
Though to give credit where it is due, I think Sontag said something like it already.
A lovely young woman I know, deeply involved in the LGBT community at her college, surprised many of her friends by marrying the father of their 6-month-old son yesterday. Everyone is so happy for them, at least in public. I can't help but wonder if her gay friends feel betrayed. She had insisted she was a lesbian before she met her now-husband.
I've seen this particular story play out a half dozen times now. I think some people are attracted to certain individuals, and they don't care so much about the plumbing.
Nature vs nurture. I've gradually come to view this dichotomy as being not all that helpful. If gayness was only biological, one would expect far more gays and "gayness" would be observable in some sort of bell curve fashion.
Now, I wonder if there is some sort of biological propensity towards gayness that only becomes active when some behavioral "switch" is activated.
It could be that for most people, the behavioral switch is so hard to flip that most people remain in the default, i.e., heterosexual orientation. In others, the behavioral switch is more easily flipped or was flipped to begin with.
Somebody help me with a Gannt chart here.
Jay said...
There are many people that feel this way. And you are losing. It won’t be long until it is widely accepted that a statement like this is no more acceptable than the most racist or sexist statements.
So in other words, you want dissent silenced.
Lovely.
Many of those people Kchiker mentions think 25% of the population is homosexual. When the truth comes out - and it will, just like global warming - we'll see how things shake out.
Joan--the scenario you describe is pretty much the plot of the movie Kissing Jessica Stein, which was a pretty good movie, though it's more likely to be appreciated by those who are comfortable seeing sexuality as fluid rather than fixed.
"So in other words, you want dissent silenced.
Lovely.”
There will be racism, sexism, and homophobia. I’m simply saying they are repugnant.
Conservative lesbian writer Florence King noted how gays were free riders on society, yet that fact is no longer seen.
Rather, it's been turned on its head, where breeders' offspring are said to impose costs unfairly on gays, like having too many cats.
That concept worked out poorly for the Shakers, though.
Kchiker said...
There will be racism, sexism, and homophobia. I’m simply saying they are repugnant.
"Homophobia" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Additionally, "racism" has been rendered meaningless.
PS, since the whole future depends on showing up, I can't wait to see how gays who can't reproduce, fare in this exercise.
"PS, since the whole future depends on showing up, I can't wait to see how gays who can't reproduce, fare in this exercise.”
Because gay people have gay children and straight people have straight children? Wow.
The trendline is against you. The youngsters smell the stench of these putrid ideas. You are losing.
Kchiker said...
"PS, since the whole future depends on showing up, I can't wait to see how gays who can't reproduce, fare in this exercise.”
Because gay people have gay children and straight people have straight children? Wow.
The trendline is against you. The youngsters smell the stench of these putrid ideas. You are losing.
How Dylan of you. Right out of The Times They Are A-changin'. Hate to say, but the yoots did eventually wake up and it's going to happen here. You can't build something on a lie and expect it to last.
And, no, "gay" people don't have any children.
Two men or two women cannot produce a baby.
(I guess he doesn't get biology)
Kchiker said...
Because gay people have gay children and straight people have straight children? Wow
Um, no. Because gays are 3% of the population and have short life spans.
The trendline is against you.
See above. No, no it is not.
The youngsters smell the stench of these putrid ideas.
Yes, because we know that political beliefs don't change as you age.
But of course we should all believe in the wisdom of "youngsters"!
The homophobes really don't understand that they've lost the war against the gays? I find that hard to believe.
The trendline is against you.
Homosexuals have higher incidences of alcohol & drug abuse, eating disorders, HIV & STD's than heterosexuals.
The trend line is clear.
PS, isn't survival of the fittest grand?
Andy R. said...
The homophobes really don't understand that they've lost the war against the gays?
"War"
Hysterical.
Wake me up when a proposition favoring gay marriage wins an election, clown.
Gay marriage has even been rejected in those bastions of conservatism Maine & California. ( In all 31 states, now including Maine, where the issue has been put to a popular vote, gay marriage has lost.)
But your views are popular Andy R!
"Because gay people have gay children and straight people have straight children?"
This is a very good question, but not because anyone has an answer. The entire debate is fraught with ignorance as to real numbers. How many gays are there? How many gays enter into long term relationships? How many married gays ever bother to have children? Would the number of gay parents grow if gay marriage became widely acceptable? Why?
In most MSM articles, the answers are never given or even addressed, except when the the response is, "Numbers don't matter when the question deals with civil rights."
But how can anyone discuss societal impacts without numbers? We got the same fuzzy number treatment during the AIDS debates, to nobody's benefit.
"But your views are popular Andy R!"
He didn't say they were popular. He said they had won.
It wasn't just the relative difference in our ages and incomes. I felt that what really put finis on my relationship with the Olsen twins was society's disapproval of bigamy and incest. It was probably best that we broke up, but I would welcome a society where people like the Olsen twins and myself could freely acknowledge our love and celebrate it with marriage.
From the Parents Task Force for Gay and Lesbian couples:
21.6% of lesbian homes and 5.2% of male gay homes have children present. About 150,000 same sex couples were raising about 250,000 kids in 2000. (Probably more now.) 8-10 million or 8-13 million children, according to who's counting, are being raised by gay parents. Apparently, most gay parents stay married to their hetero partners. One might project that most of those are lesbians.
From another source, 6% of same sex couples adopt. About 65,000 kids have been adopted to same sex couples, the majority from overseas.
Correction:
"Apparently, most gay parents stay married to their hetero partners."
Or are single parent families, of course.
8-10 million or 8-13 million children, according to who's counting, are being raised by gay parents
That probably off by only an order of magnitude or two.
Ralph L wrote:
"'8-10 million or 8-13 million children, according to who's counting, are being raised by gay parents'
That probably off by only an order of magnitude or two."
Another source said 6-14 million. Methodology not explained. Out of 75.6 million children in the US. So, anywhere from 8% - 18.5% of all US children have at least one gay parent. Seems rather high unless gays tend to have much larger families than straights.
Oh no. Another leftard lets the secret out of the bag. Shocking.
The left is not numerate and thus pulls numbers out of the air to support their various positions. Because they are innumerate they do not know how to plausibly use fake numbers. Thus their high speed train construction budgets are laughably low, their gay parent numbers ridiculously high, their understanding of business fundamentally nil thus resulting in preposterous claims to their favor. It is discouraging on so many fronts.
If gays are 3-5% of the population, then one would expect somewhere between 2.27 million and 3.8 million children have at least one gay parent. Not an order of magnitude off, but at least one or two standard deviations off. (No puns, please.)
Except, Trash, a lot of that 3-5% couldn't possibly be biological parents.
Methodology not explained
Perhaps they included children of convicts. How could they even estimate the number of married fathers who are on the DL?
FWIW, estimates range from 1.3% of the population (from tracking VD rates) to 3.5% (those who self-identify).
At any rate, the number of kids being raised by same sex couples (250,000 in 2000) is a tiny percentage of kids in the US. Assuming a huge increase to 500,000children today, that is less than .7% of all kids. Which is probably why most stories rely on individual anecdotal accounts about their experiences. You can find them, but they aren't very common on the ground.
For me, this has little to do with actual sexual orientation, but with avoiding being held accountable for chosen behavior by claiming it isn't--that it was predestined. They don't want their aberrant behavior (note the word), whatever it is, to be anything resembling a personal choice.
This cuts across all cultural lines.
I have seen very religious people treat their families, especially spouses, like shit using the same basic excuse--"it's who I am."
All I know is, after all the squares went home to have missionary sex, every gay gathering I've ever attended became that scene in The Ten Commandments where everyone started frolicking around the golden calf, mixed with Eyes Wide Shut. They mocked conventional society, from top-to-bottom, and declared they were the real power running society - and it showed, too:
During the day, if you were "in," doors magically flew open that were closed before (including security check points and the like) free food was had at restaurants, and - because many in the scene were powerful people who hung on the DL with tattooed and horned types - all kinds of connections were cemented, to make things happen, that otherwise wouldn't.
My point is, subversion is at the heart of the "movement" (what do you think Gwyneth Paltrow's nickname "GOOP" really stands for?) and, unless you understand it, stuff like The War On Christmas seems frivolous or makes little sense.
It's definitely not to them,...
Can you imagine what Barney Frank's life is really like?
I know - you don't want to know - and he's counting on that to get away with all kinds of shit.
Like giving away almost-free houses, maybe?
I'm telling you, all of this "spiritual" shit goes deeper than any of you imagine,...
The homophobes really don't understand that they've lost the war against the gays?
More of Andy's rhetorical flare.
Sorry Crack - but your baseless gay hatred is distasteful as much as baseless race bashing.
How about this?
For some people it's a choice, for some it's not.
I think that sums it up. Kinsey might've been largely full of shit, but there's something to the idea of a Kinsey scale-- i.e. a spectrum of congenital dispositions in conjunction with cultural influences & individual choices.
IMO for sure, there's a biological basis (in many cases-- especially among gay men in the modern world). But like all things human, the nature/ culture dichotomy gets complicated; the historical record suffices to show this. Look at Greco-Roman society, where male-male erotic desire in some form was normalized (older-younger, mentor-student, whatever).
I know there's a commenter here who occasionally fulminates against Foucault, and I've never gotten around to replying. IMO there's a lot of good stuff in Foucault (along with a lot of bullshit-- as with any great theorist or philosopher). The mistake is to take Foucault's historical/ genealogical analyses-- which are meant to be descriptive-- for prescriptive. Just because Foucault points out that e.g. the Medieval period didn't make a big deal about certain things we find shocking (pedophilia or rape or whatever) doesn't mean he's advocating these things.
Or, better put (since there is some prescriptivism in Foucault I wouldn't want subscribe to): separate the descriptive value of his historical analyses from any of his prescriptive or political advocacy. The former might be illuminating (about the constants & variabilities of human nature, the vagaries of culture & ethical mores), even if you reject the latter.
Alex,
Sorry Crack - but your baseless gay hatred is distasteful as much as baseless race bashing.
What are you talking about? Who said anything about hate? I've posted this before:
With Love: Stanley E. Williams & Quentin Easter
And here's another:
I had a friend that died today. He was a gay guy, with a really great smile, who (before I knew him) used to let people worship him as a voodoo priest. When my marriage crumbled, and I first discovered how deep my ex, Karine Anne Brunck, was into NewAge, he immediately came over and told me these incredible stories of all the silly people that would follow him. How they'd bring him gifts, money, have sex with him - anything - so they could be in his favor. He told me my ex was "just one of those people" who's too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, real and unreal. A functional zombie. He joked that, if I asked him how to fake levitation, none of this would've happened. He made me laugh somehow, when in all that horror, I never would've thought it was possible.
And now here I am today, with his death all around, thinking he's still being funny:
Reminding me that, since the hypocrites of decency always reveal themselves, it's only the true con men who are really any good.
Boy, what a "hater," huh? Like misogyny, I don't think these words mean what you think they mean,...
BTW - that second guy? He died from kidney disease and I was his caretaker.
What a monster!
1990 is way too late for that observation. You must mean 1980. Because biology versus choice was forced on the gay community by the AIDS epidemic which began in 1981. Before that time you would get slammed for suggesting that homosexuality was inbred, because it was considered a matter of individual freedom and human rights until AIDS at which point the strategical decision was made to reverse this stance and claim it a matter of biology so that no gay person could be accused of spreading a deadly disease by choice.
I remember discussing the biological basis for homosexuality (relating to intrauterine hormone surges) that was being investigated at the time to a liberal friend who nearly threw me out of her apartment and openly ridiculed me in front of a group for expressing such a heresy: that it was NOT a choice. Because indeed it was. Until that became a liability.
I'm going to try to make this easy.
Initially, the homosexual community wanted to win over the scientific community which was convinced that homosexuality was a treatable disease with some psychological or biological basis. To do that, a group of mostly (secretly) gay men convinced the scientific community that it was a choice and that the choice was not harmful to the individual.
However, the larger society was primarily religious and had on the basis of their beliefs always believed that it was a choice. The homosexuality community didn't want just tolerance, but approval, so in the '80's they went about face and argued that it had a biological basis on the quasi-religious grounds that 'if God made me this way, I must be ok'.
In addition to the bad theology, there are three even bigger problems with this latest political correct convention. First of all, it is a lie. Despite being one of the best funded and most high profile endeavors in genetic research, after 20 plus years of looking no 'gay gene' or conclusive genetic or biological markers have ever been found. In fact, if you've been following the latest papers, all this research to 'settle the question' is in fact settling the question in the opposite direction. Right now its estimated that _at most_ no more than 30% of homosexuality can be explained by any genetic or biological factor. That's an upper bound. The actual number is likely to turn out to be lower than that. Secondly, in thier earnestness to persuade the religious community they've forgotten their own history and why it was terribly important to persuade the scientific community in the first place. If homosexuality has a genetic or biological basis, then it is a disfunctional genetic or biological abnormality and a cure as such could probably be devised and probably _would_ be devised. This is a much more serious problem for anyone wanting homosexuality to be considered 'an acceptable alternative lifestyle' than the disapproval of a religious group.
A few years ago, a gay buddy and I went to a gay bar where the scene was suitably gay. So I posed the question to him, 'Did he see anything queer there.' I knew the answer as everything seemed quite normal... for a gay bar.
He correctly replied, 'No.'
I'm not homosexual and am highly unlikely to ever engage in any homosexual acts (although my private mental fantasy life is, let's say, ecumenical) .
But as for me, I would find a world without homosexuality, and without what one might call gay or queer culture (i.e. the many different facets & strands of it intertwined in culture as a whole) a much poorer place.
I say, vive la difference.
As a devout follower of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, I am compelled to believe that homosexuality is a choice. If it was genetic, it would last all of one generation. From a genetic perspective, homosexuality is akin to removing yourself from the gene pool, its genetic suicide.
That said, as a libertarian, I like the idea of homosexuality being a freely chosen lifestyle. The idea of there being a genetic marker, brings up all sorts of uncomfortable possibilities, buttressed by historical archive.
I suspect sexuality can be described as a line where most people are at one end and just like the opposite sex. Then a percentage of what's left is at the other end of the line and just like the same sex. The what's left between those two percentages are scattered along that line and like both, or strongly prefer one or the other but can also like the opposing. To place everyone either at one end or the other doesn't work.
I am compelled to believe that homosexuality is a choice. If it was genetic, it would last all of one generation.
You are apparently too dumb to realize how dumb this statement is.
"You are apparently too dumb to realize how dumb this statement is."
There is a small possibility that you might be taken more serious if you bothered to actually refute an argument rather than just insult someone. Who's mind do you think will be changed with that carefully crafted statement? The guy will say, "well, wait. Apparently I may be too dumb to realized how dumb my statement is. That Andy has made me think more about it. Even though the man can't figure out how to wear a hat, his logic is unmistakeably correct."
Honest question: if this was in any other area of life besides sexuality, wouldn't this type of behavior be considered a disorder?
Ok, I would be happy to explain. Should I assume based on your previous comment that you have absolutely no understanding of genetics?
SPImmortal, the genetics got pushed to make homosexuality another "race", like black, and thus fall under the 14th Amendment.
As Bob_R said, if gay was confirmed as mostly genetic, there would be an in-home gene test kit for it 90 seconds later, and abortion clinics and medical sterilization docs would do a land office business shortly. That's here in the US; overseas in the Dar al Islam, it would happen even faster.
We won't even discuss the probability that some bright spark would come up with an actual "gay plague" in a lab somewhere; genetically targeted virii are not in the realm of science fiction these days....
Is homosexuality a choice? No surprise that liberals and conservatives disagree.
But aside from political calculations, there is another reason for the disagreement: the word "choice" itself.
Liberals use "choice" to mean control. If something is a choice, liberals assert, then you have complete, conscious control of all options.
Conservatives use "choice" to mean agency, influence, or liberty...as in, no one chooses to get in a car accident, but car accidents often happen when people choose to drive in an unsafe manner.
Myself, I prefer the latter definition, because there are very few things in life that you have complete conscious control of all options. And while many things happen that we do not consciously choose, we do choose how we respond.
So everyone has urges. Is someone a homosexual for a single homosexual thought? What identifies a homosexual? Their taste in shoes? Of course not. It is the behavior that makes a homosexual.
As such, you may not have control of your urges or desires, but you do have choices of what to do about it.
Myself, homosexuality seems closest to a fetish...an acquired dependence that can only be changed through a sincere desire to change, commitment to change, and consistent follow through.
Almost exactly like smoking...
Tolerance people tolerance.
"By the way, I vividly remember back around 1990, the progressive gay-rights-type people I knew were intent upon portraying sexual orientation as a choice. "
Yeah, and I remember the gay-rights-type people insisting marriage was for weak, stupid breeders who weren't enlightened and confident enough to love without a government stamp of approval, like gays were.
Obviously before they realized marriage could get them free insurance, pensions, etc.
It's interesting to me that rarely does a discussion on nature vs nurture orientation delve into the the rate of homosexual behavior in prisons. Strictly anecdotally and in a potentially non parallel context , I have been told by caregivers of people with developmental disabilities that there is often a similar fluidity of sexuality. And there are instances of uninformed children expressing hetero attraction while assuming both sexes have the same equipment in the non-visible zone below the waist. At some point, new information comes in and sexuality seems to be able to incorporate that external influence...almost always..but not always towards heterosexuality. I'm not sure what to make of all that..but cereberally, it casts at least some less discussed questions about the Nature vs Nurture issue.
In terms of gay marriage rights, I find it interesting that the partner hospital visit scenario is invoked far more often than the issue of various financial benefits. Assigning health care power of attorney should be an easy step to remedy the former.
(And if you don't like what I wrote, you're just dumb)
This entire conversation reminds me of an experience I had some years ago while substitute teaching in a high school. Out of nowhere a student in a history or English class asked me if I thought homosexuality was the result of biology or a choice?
I asked him if he ever felt sexually attracted to anyone and if that attraction happened because he "choose to be attracted" or it just happened for reasons he could not explain?
After class I went to the school office and suggested that they invite some gay speakers to the school to discuss the issue with the students since it was a matter of interest. Several years later the school did just that.
Finally, I would add that I have known some people who have been gay all their lives and some people who have been with partners of the same sex and later with opposite sex. I would not call them bisexual as that implies they are having these relationships simultaneously. I believe it would be more accurate to say they were at one time homosexual and at another time heterosexual. Why is that so horrible??? I don't know. I have also met some people who are truly bisexual in the sense that they have both gay and straight relationships going on at the same time.
I have also known some women who claim to be bisexual, but are actually just unable to find a good heterosexual relationship. They've typically had a string of bad relationships with men and say they want to try women for a change, as if they might be lesbians... They aren't actually lesbians, they are simply women who are emotionally needy and have to have a romantic/sexual partner in their lives. They are bad news. These are the flirty women guys see at bars -- it's just a come on, literally, because they know guys love it.
These are real life experiences. Based on my experience I would say that when Cynthia Nixon says homosexuality is a choice what she means is that she has chosen to fully be with a woman she loves.
Hmm..as a sub in an English or history class, maybe passing on that question would be more appropriate...matter of interest or not. I wonder what the content was of the speakers who subsequently came to the school.
I mean..it's an area open to many interpretations..many probably not to the liking of some parents.
For example, never heard of this definition before "I would not call them bisexual as that implies they are having these relationships simultaneously.
"There will be racism, sexism, and homophobia. I’m simply saying they are repugnant."
Except when they fit the narrative
As an "openly gay" dude, there is something deeply entertaining about being the subject of such intense interest.
Do I exist? If I exist, how did I come into existence? Is my existence a good thing, tremendously wicked, or an indifference?
Ultimately, this is all prelude to decide one thing: the position of ones' eyebrows. Are we to be scowled at, or no? In a free nation with the rule of law, that's about all that's available.
For my part, it appears to me that I exist. I'm quite happy existing in the way that I do (having been the same person this whole time, and observing as much misery, and joy, among hetero's as other types), and am thoroughly enjoying the attention. Analyze away!
Excellent. Thanks for the real out-loud chuckle. God bless you, and us all, great and small.
Heh, good points.
Hahahaaaaaa
Ha - tolerance is a one-way street, didn't you get your marching orders?
It brings to mind my reaction to Lady Gaga's Born That Way song; she's an excellent musician (and I do like her music), but she apparently flunked Biology. There seems to be a theme that homosexuals are born, not made. When I've advanced the statement that such a thing has NOT in fact been proven, I'm challenged with "Well, did you choose to be straight?" as if heterosexuality and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin and must have similar origins.
Carol Herman said:
"And, it's INHERITED."
Presuming that this is not a tongue-in-cheek comment, please cite any actual studies showing this, or any organization stating this is true as a matter of science (as opposed to politics) - in other words, by some group comprised of experts in genetics.
BNO, you should do whatever you want with whoever you want. As long as they are a consenting adult it's none of my business.
At the point that someone demands that society not just tolerate but actively support your choices, it then does become my business.
Ms. Nixon foolishly thinks she gets to define herself, be autonomous. That's Not Allowed on the Liberal Plantation, Miz Nixon. (It won't stop her from sending her check in to OFA, though, like a good little tool.)
rencAndy R. said...
Ok, I would be happy to explain. Should I assume based on your previous comment that you have absolutely no understanding of genetics?
I dare say you don't either. However, in the event that you do, please tell me, nay, tell all of us where homosexuality exists in the human genome so I can look it up. I await your answer.
Andy R. said...
The homophobes really don't understand that they've lost the war against the gays? I find that hard to believe.
Oh come on Andy. Are you typing this with your heterophobe screed hat on to tight? Have you ever met anyone that had an irrational fear of homosexuals? Name them. Just one.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा