Whether homosexuality is innate or whether it is acquired — the age-old nature versus nurture debate — has long shaped the political and social discussion over gay rights.
- CNN, 6/30/2007
DAMMIT. It’s like the fucktards leading the jackasses. If we played in CNN’s severely underpowered logical arena, the question would be: Why the hell would nature vs. nurture have anything to do with the rights granted to US citizens? That’s like saying that if homosexuality is a choice, gays shouldn’t be protected under the Bill of Rights? Huh? What? EXACTLY.
But the discussion is actually the problem. The very idea that there are and aren’t circumstances under which gays shouldn’t be granted precisely the same rights and privileges as every other US citizen is just a poor attempt at justifying a despicable set of ideas.
Pro-choice vs. Pro-life? Let’s debate, because I can see your point even if you disagree with me. Conservative vs. Liberal? Let’s have at it, because there are gray areas.
But if you think gay is “wrong…” Fuck you, and get the hell out of my house.
Love to all. Even you, Taylor Gandossy.
Entries (RSS)
June 30th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
You are so right and so awesome! =)
June 30th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I think it would be obvious to say I agree with you.
I do love that more people are understanding it’s not a choice.
June 30th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hygiene Dad: I actually disagree with you. My point is that it doesn’t MATTER if it’s a choice. Who CARES?
By saying that it’s good that more people are understanding that it’s not a choice implies that if it were a choice, it would be bad?
See what I’m sayin’, brother? The discussion itself is flawed.
No offense intended, of course.
J_AKA_E: Thanks, dudeness. I just wish people would STOP this and move on to stuff that matters.
June 30th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Americans only discuss issues that divide them and not what should unite them. Why, let’s call down the tribulation on Washington for the travesty of war, and denounce the President and Impeach him.
Let’s burn all the people who believe in a womans right to choose and of course let us stone the homosexuals because they are so immoral and have such a negative impact on the face of the nation!!! (we should boycott as your hairdressers, florists, decorators, and gardners!) The nation would get progressively UGLIER by the minute…
They won’t discuss dissension or what is right, but they sure as hell will discuss who is marrying whom and why! We must protect the sanctity of marriage! While the straight still own the block on divorce and abuse of children! fancy that…
Isn’t America Funny that way, that’s why I left!
Now all the poor Americans are spending hundreds of dollars on Iphones and meanwhile they complain about not making enough money at work, they can’t buy groceries, pay rent or their bills on time and buy GAS!!! WTF!!
Straight people give me GAS!
Jeremy
June 30th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Jeremy, you okay out there? That was pretty unlike you?
Gay = hairdresser, decorator, gardener? I’m pretty sure you’re kidding, but it’s hard to make jokes when you’re seething. You know?
Making fun of the iPhone? Well, that’s just blaspheme.
Straight people give you gas? Don’t counter jackassery with jackassery, man. You know that.
It’s like someone else is commenting under your name, or something.
June 30th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
If it’s okay to discriminate against people for things they *choose*, then it’s okay to discriminate on the basis of religion, right? Because what you believe is a choice, right?
So the people who discriminate against gay people, and who believe it’s a choice, they’d be the ones who think it’s okay to not employ jews, or catholics. Right?
I have to say Rich, I tend to agree with you. While they debate nature or nurture, all they’re doing is looking for justification for their hatred.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:41 am
Violently in agreement with you.
And Excellently put.
The problem we seem to have as a society is that it seems we MUST have “outsiders.” We talk a great talk about “freedom and justice for all” but we walk the walk of “freedom and justice for me and the people like me.” Between that and a growing narcissism that starts with “the rules apply to everyone but me” (see Dick Cheney, et. al.) and proceeds through “I got mine and I’ll take yours too” and to points beyond.
And Logic? Too inconvenient. It just gets in the way of me making sure I’m in and you’re out.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:08 am
NO, I’m not seething. It’s true isn’t it? People want to talk about divisive topics that are inane, rather than talking about topics that are meaningful like impeaching the president and dissent about the war, and spending excessive money on things that make you go Hmm… When people are moaning and complaining about prices, the lack of and the state of health care!! It just doesn’t make sense.
You know that gay men and women hold high positions in all the major areas of the world, beauty, fashion, decor and gardening. Not to mention those of us in academia. Now if all us gay folk, walked off the job for one day, the female population of the world would get exceedingly UGLY! And the men wouldn’t know what to wear or have perfect lawns and gardens. I’m sure gay New Yorkers could bring the city that never sleeps to a screetching halt if we took a few days off…
Yes, these self righteous - and I might add, some of them in sobriety, give me gas! UGH! Stop telling us what you think we should not do or have and start telling me what you are going to do for me today!
Oh the insanity of humanity!!
I’m just keepin it real !!
July 1st, 2007 at 9:44 am
I learned, a LONG time ago, to avoid judging someone on something as simplistic as ’sexual preference’.
If you require further proof, hop over to my place and take a looong look at the picture in the “Blast From the Past” post. The REAL answer to the “Guess” question? Only the women in the photo are straight. We were COVER.
It was my way of proving that, when people say “Oh, I could TELL!” - they are blowing smoke.
Also - the boy next to me in the photo? One of my best friends EVER. To the point that I was willing to marry him to ‘keep his secret’. (We didn’t, but I would have).
Needless to say, I am listed as the one that ‘no one really understands’ in my family. (Except for my gay cousins. They love me!)
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Does this mean you don’t want me hanging around here and commenting anymore?
BTW, nature vs. nurture matters a lot. It comes down to whether a sexual preference - heterosexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia, ephebophilia, animaliophilia (animal love - might have Latin wrong), necrophilia, various fetishes, etc. - a congenital trait (i.e., a normal natural trait determined by undamaged genes), a neurological/psychological disorder (i.e., an abnormal trait determined by damaged genes and/or nurturing by either passive or active external psychological pressures) and/or a behavioral choice (i.e., an act or series of acts performed with reflection and full consent of the will).
Regarding cases in which a sexual preference is congenital, societies and their scientific professionals should be free to determine whether it is caused by normal or abnormal genes or gene products. If it is normal, it should regarded as just another expression of human diversity. If it is abnormal, efforts should be made to treat and cure it, and there should be no implicit legal protection for resultant behaviors (though relevant governing bodies should be free to offer explicit protection).
Regarding cases in which a sexual preference develops after birth, societies and their scientific professionals should be free to determine whether it is caused by normal or abnormal neuro/psychological function. If it is normal, it should regarded as just another expression of human diversity. If it is abnormal, efforts should be made to treat and cure it, and there should be no implicit legal protection for resultant behaviors (though relevant governing bodies should be free to offer explicit protection).
Regarding cases in which a sexual preference is based on freely made decisions, societies should be free to determine whether it should be accepted or not. Matters are not as simple here as in the previous cases. Different groups and organizations, public or private, may differ on the acceptability of certain sexual preferences/acts. How those differences are resolved is dependent on the prevailing governing bodies, which will decide whether to provide legal protections for particular acts. Also, if a governing body were to deny legal protection to a behavior, it should also have the right to permit or mandate legal punishments for an unacceptable behavior and to decide under what conditions those punishments would be permitted or mandated.
Even looking at just a single example, such as America’s representative democracy, does not simplify matters much. Though the power to govern is derived from the consent of those governed, ours is not a country ruled simply by majority. Those who accept behavior A have a right to elect representatives who claim also accept A and will support legislation to protect A, and those who do not accept behavior A have a right to elect representatives who also do not accept A, will support legislation to deny protection to A, and may or may not support legal punishments for A. Any legislation produced will neither merely ratify the will of the majority, nor accommodate the whim of every minority.
Moving out the realm of hypothetical arguments, and getting to the heart of current political debate on homosexual marriage, I’d like to know why the federal government should have a say about marriage of any variety, except to say that no state should be obliged to accept as legally binding a marriage (of any kind) performed in another state. Furthermore, why should any state be obligated to recognize any marriage whatsoever (though I doubt that any would choose to refuse recognition)?
In my opinion, civil marriage should be regarded as merely a legally binding contract to ensure some degree of permanence as preferred or demanded by other parties, such as insurance companies. Any aspect of marriage beyond contractual obligations should be left to private bodies (such as clubs and religious groups), which should be free to sanction and endorse - or not - civil marriages as they see fit (i.e., their right to free association should be legally protected). Furthermore, legal protection of certain behaviors should not impinge upon anyone’s right to speak in public opposition of those behaviors (i.e., so-called “hate crime” laws that restrict free speech should be regarded as unconstitutional in light of the First Amendment).
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
If by discriminate you mean deny certain legal protections, rights, and/or privileges (such as marriage), would you be willing to provide the same to polygamists? Pedo/ephebophiles?
Choices are not all equal. The choice to have toast for breakfast instead of cereal is not of the same import or impact as the choice to buy a hybrid car instead of an SUV. Nor is either of the same import or impact as choosing to steal something rather than buy it. There are countless moral matters that we, through our representative democracy, have decided to legislate for or against. Take murder as an example. Make whatever sociological claims you like, the reality is that if you stopped John Q. Voter on the street and ask him why murder is illegal, he’ll tell you it’s wrong. Pressed for reasons why, he’ll undoubtedly appeal to some variety of moral code.
So, choices are not all equal, and our country’s governments have decided, with our consent (albeit perhaps without our input), that some of them are wrong and should be at least denied legal protections, if not legally punished.
I want it to be clearly understood I that I make these points independently of my personal opinions regarding how right or wrong homosexual acts are and whether or not members of the same sex should be allowed to marry. I just find arguments against legislating choices, even moral choices, to be hollow and unconvincing, lacking logical consistency.
How would you propose arguing the pros and cons of current and possible future legislative decisions instead?
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Disregard my last point. I misread the bit I quoted as saying that logic is used to justify making sure I’m in and you’re out.†Oops.