Support NeoGAF

[mrmyth]

2. I dont know if its been posted yet, but have you all seen the number yet that up to 2500 foster children will now be taken from their parents and guardians and put back into state-run orphanages, which have been under investigation for recent child deaths? It's such a tragedy.

Yes, but they won't catch THE GAY and be picked on in school for having queer parents. Now they'll just be picked on for having no parents and eventually be killed by the people who are charged to protect them. It all works out.

 

[galeninjapan]

Anyone care to explain "Catch the gay"

 

[Zaptruder]

Anyone care to explain "Catch the gay"

The idea that hanging around homosexuals will make you one too.

 

[Matlock]

You lost me there. People choose to be gay? Based on peer pressure, basically?

How do you explain homsexual animals then?

how smug!

I'd say far more people have turned straight due to society (supressing their gayness in other words) than have ever turned gay.

This is something I've had to encounter twice within my own family and it's pretty depressing sight to behold.

Maybe you already knew this, but you didn't actually argue anything there.

All wrong! Special notice to Hito: it was an argument against the "homosexuality is wholly natural" debate.

It doesn't seem to love you.

:lol

I'm pretty sure it's BOTH.

And we have a winner. The debate over sexuality is the same debate behind violence--nature is part, but the society in which a person grows up in along with their upbringing helps decide their leaning.

 

[Hitokage]

Special notice to Hito: it was an argument against the "homosexuality is wholly natural" debate.

You simply asserted "it's also social" without stating why. You didn't argue anything, you're only contradicting.

 

[Matlock]

Hey, I just go with the APA sees fit to print--they've always denoted it as a bio-psycho-social thing.

Gimme some time and I'll dig up some things around 2 am or so.

 

[galeninjapan]

The idea that hanging around homosexuals will make you one too.

Not all people believe that though.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Not all people believe that though.

Which is why people refer to it as "CATCHING THE GAY" They are mocking it...

 

[maharg]

And once again the conservatives bait the liberals into another end run around the real issues by bringing up the question of nature and nurture and whether or not a choice.

Here's a hint, when people talk about Conservatives "framing the argument," this is it. The moment you allow yourself to be dragged into an argument about whether or not it's a choice, you've given them the win. You've allowed the situation to go into vague and meaningless territory on an argument that wouldn't even hold water if it *WERE* true.

Why in god's name do you people let yourselves fall for this EVERY DAMN TIME?

 

[Matlock]

And once again the conservatives bait the liberals into another end run around the real issues by bringing up the question of nature and nurture and whether or not a choice.

It's as much a choice as it isn't. There are certain in-born charactaristics that homosexuals have (the sex center of the hypothalamus is twice the size in heterosexuals, for example) between bio/genetic and psychological factors. I can't say any clearer, even after looking at some psychology material, that society is indeed a deciding factor. Having a predisposition for homosexual behaviour is one thing--but being in a societal situation where you can safely become a practicing gay is another.

Even without that societal opening, homosexuals can practice. But in some cases, they find themselves confused and just go with methods such as abstiinence due to their lack of attraction to the opposite sex and the perception of their being homosexual as something they want to be.

You're born with the gay, but there's a point where you've got to decide to be the gay or not.

There's a lot of grey area that just can't be covered by the "born with/born without" arguments.

Why in god's name do you people let yourselves fall for this EVERY DAMN TIME?

"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."

 

[maharg]

You either *really* missed the point or you quoted the wrong guy.

 

[Matlock]

I was pointing towards Hito, but I quoted you for the convenience of tossing up a spaceballs quote.

 

[Mandark]

maharg: You got sucked into a nature vs. nurture debate. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH IT IS.

Matlock: Let me explain which it is!

maharg: ...

For what it's worth, I think it's somewhat valuable in this case to take away the word "unnatural" from the opponent's arsenal. In general, it's also a good thing to expose the opposition as being utterly irrational, though this only really matters when there's an audience to convince.

 

[Matlock]

<maharg> maybe you missed the point
<matlock> I wasn't really replying directly to you
<cyan> liberals are smart! conservatives ignore arguments they don't like and parrot talking points!
<mandark> haha matlock is dumb not gonna read his post

So does that mean Mandark is a conservative?

 

[gofreak]

Sorry to jump in without even reading the whole thread, but there are a couple of points here I'd like to pick up on.

It's as much a choice as it isn't. There are certain in-born charactaristics that homosexuals have (the sex center of the hypothalamus is twice the size in heterosexuals, for example) between bio/genetic and psychological factors. I can't say any clearer, even after looking at some psychology material, that society is indeed a deciding factor. Having a predisposition for homosexual behaviour is one thing--but being in a societal situation where you can safely become a practicing gay is another.

You don't have to be a practising homosexual to be homosexual. The state of being is not a choice. Of course, society has an influence on how open one can be with their sexuality and how comfortable one feels "practicing" or how feasible it is for one to "practice". But the state of society has no impact on the state of being, the frequency of occurence etc.

And I hope, hope, hope you're not suggesting that society shouldn't make the lives of gay people easier, or indeed make them difficult - that its better to "discourage it" through law and that way "it'll all go away". I'm not going to fight you over that point if you're not making it, but if you are..

You're born with the gay, but there's a point where you've got to decide to be the gay or not.

No. The state of being is not a choice. You make the choice to have sex with someone of the same gender, but that doesn't make you homosexual. If you abstained completely from sex, that doesn't mean you're not homosexual.

In the latter instance, you can argue that abstinence is a choice open to gay people. That is true. However, the key word here is choice. It cannot be imposed, either directly or indirectly - indirectly would be all those closet-cases who go off and marry due to societal pressure..they may be shagging people of the opposite sex, but their abstaining from their natural urges. Frankly, in my own humble opinion, I think abstinence is an unnatural state of being. It's less natural to deny your sexuality than it is to embrace it. In fact, in a lot of cases, that's one of the most self-destructive things you can do - at least when it's not a specific and desired choice on your part, made in absence of any other influences but your own desire.

In my own experience, the state of society, and societal pressure has made me honestly feel very reluctant about my sexuality. I accept it, but I find it very very difficult to live in this world with it. My acting on my sexuality, or not, doesn't make or not make me gay, however. My reluctance and my fear and my anxiety over my sexuality do not make me not gay. All of that fear, anxiety etc. stems completely from external influences - in and of myself, I'm perfectly happy and comfortable with my sexuality, but I fear and worry about how others think and how others will accept me, and how "society" will in general treat me.

So society does not control or influence the existance of homosexuality, really only how much it wants to fucking torture those who are homosexual with the aim of pretending it does not exist.

 

[Che]

It's as much a choice as it isn't. There are certain in-born charactaristics that homosexuals have (the sex center of the hypothalamus is twice the size in heterosexuals, for example) between bio/genetic and psychological factors. I can't say any clearer, even after looking at some psychology material, that society is indeed a deciding factor. Having a predisposition for homosexual behaviour is one thing--but being in a societal situation where you can safely become a practicing gay is another.

Even without that societal opening, homosexuals can practice. But in some cases, they find themselves confused and just go with methods such as abstiinence due to their lack of attraction to the opposite sex and the perception of their being homosexual as something they want to be.

You're born with the gay, but there's a point where you've got to decide to be the gay or not.

There's a lot of grey area that just can't be covered by the "born with/born without" arguments.



"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."

The only way society can affect homosexuality is to suppress it. And suppressed sexuality is an unnatural behaviour. Homosexuality isn't. End of story.

 

[OmniGamer]

Sorry to jump in without even reading the whole thread, but there are a couple of points here I'd like to pick up on.



You don't have to be a practising homosexual to be homosexual. The state of being is not a choice. Of course, society has an influence on how open one can be with their sexuality and how comfortable one feels "practicing" or how feasible it is for one to "practice". But the state of society has no impact on the state of being, the frequency of occurence etc.

And I hope, hope, hope you're not suggesting that society shouldn't make the lives of gay people easier, or indeed make them difficult - that its better to "discourage it" through law and that way "it'll all go away". I'm not going to fight you over that point if you're not making it, but if you are..



No. The state of being is not a choice. You make the choice to have sex with someone of the same gender, but that doesn't make you homosexual. If you abstained completely from sex, that doesn't mean you're not homosexual.

In the latter instance, you can argue that abstinence is a choice open to gay people. That is true. However, the key word here is choice. It cannot be imposed, either directly or indirectly - indirectly would be all those closet-cases who go off and marry due to societal pressure..they may be shagging people of the opposite sex, but their abstaining from their natural urges. Frankly, in my own humble opinion, I think abstinence is an unnatural state of being. It's less natural to deny your sexuality than it is to embrace it. In fact, in a lot of cases, that's one of the most self-destructive things you can do - at least when it's not a specific and desired choice on your part, made in absence of any other influences but your own desire.

In my own experience, the state of society, and societal pressure has made me honestly feel very reluctant about my sexuality. I accept it, but I find it very very difficult to live in this world with it. My acting on my sexuality, or not, doesn't make or not make me gay, however. My reluctance and my fear and my anxiety over my sexuality do not make me not gay. All of that fear, anxiety etc. stems completely from external influences - in and of myself, I'm perfectly happy and comfortable with my sexuality, but I fear and worry about how others think and how others will accept me, and how "society" will in general treat me.

So society does not control or influence the existance of homosexuality, really only how much it wants to fucking torture those who are homosexual with the aim of pretending it does not exist.

I agree and i've stated this point in a similar thread before. It's why I had to really restrain myself in "religion" class in my senior year when the topic of homosexuality came up, because I found the church's half-assed stance on it to be so incredibly insulting. "Oh, well you can be gay...just don't do or say anything to act on it"....riiiiiiiight. You can be you, just supress and "turn off" a core aspect of your very being....as i said before to any heterosexual person, go ahead and "turn off" your sexuality, all of the subtle and subconscious ways it expresses itself on any typical day, and see how "human" you feel.

The choice stance is so myopic....as far as i'm concerned, it's like saying you "choose" to breathe, sure you have control over the act of breathing, but you have no control over the innate need to breathe....ok, so analogies suck, but you get the idea. Maybe a better version would be saying you "choose" to see, and you could always close your eyes instead...but why would you? Why would you handicap yourself voluntarily?

 

[Zaptruder]

It's as much a choice as it isn't. There are certain in-born charactaristics that homosexuals have (the sex center of the hypothalamus is twice the size in heterosexuals, for example) between bio/genetic and psychological factors. I can't say any clearer, even after looking at some psychology material, that society is indeed a deciding factor. Having a predisposition for homosexual behaviour is one thing--but being in a societal situation where you can safely become a practicing gay is another.

Even without that societal opening, homosexuals can practice. But in some cases, they find themselves confused and just go with methods such as abstiinence due to their lack of attraction to the opposite sex and the perception of their being homosexual as something they want to be.

You're born with the gay, but there's a point where you've got to decide to be the gay or not.

There's a lot of grey area that just can't be covered by the "born with/born without" arguments.



"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."

Is it really choice tho? Certainly even if you're born with homosexual tendencies, you might not trigger the necessary conditions to actually be homosexual.

But that said, who knows what the triggering conditions are? Perhaps it's even brought on by unnatural agitation upon the subject both positive and negative. This argument probably grasps at straws, but the second part is to ask, so what if they're homosexuals? Why do other people's personal sex lifes become an issue of public scrutiny? I think in this kind of cultural atmosphere, there would be more people willing to accept people practicing various deviant sexual philias, then there would be accepting of gay people, at least in an internal sense.

In our modern world... we face a population crisis; where there won't be enough young and able people left to support the increasingly old and many... but they're more than enough straight people not doing their job of bringing up healthy children... that said, given the overall world situation, it might be more effective to import or adopt kids from poorer parts of the world.

 

[gofreak]

Is it really choice tho? Certainly even if you're born with homosexual tendencies, you might not trigger the necessary conditions to actually be homosexual.

Ehh...be careful with your wording, please. Don't suggest the responsibility for "triggering" something like one's sexuality lies with the person. At least conciously triggering. If someone conciously triggers their own sexuality, then they effectively choose their own sexuality. I don't believe this is the case at all, and I think anyone who examines their own experience will come to the same conclusion.

I don't think you mean it like that, but but I just want to clarify.

Also, the word "deviant" may offend some. Regardless of its precise definition, it carries unwelcome connotations.

 

[galeninjapan]

Homosexuality isn't. End of story.

Stop the presses GAF has solved a Long debate. Someone plan a parade for Che.

 

[Do The Mario]

This law sickens me so do some of your replies.

 

[Zaptruder]

Ehh...be careful with your wording, please. Don't suggest the responsibility for "triggering" something like one's sexuality lies with the person. At least conciously triggering. If someone conciously triggers their own sexuality, then they effectively choose their own sexuality. I don't believe this is the case at all, and I think anyone who examines their own experience will come to the same conclusion.

I don't think you mean it like that, but but I just want to clarify.

Also, the word "deviant" may offend some. Regardless of its precise definition, it carries unwelcome connotations.

Trigger as in any event or circumstances that can cause something to be there that it otherwise wouldn't be.

Such as schizophrenia; widely recognized to have genetic heritability, but not all high risk (or even most) people get to the stage of clinical schizophrenia in their lifetimes... so obviously there are circumstances and conditions that trigger the disease; what they are we don't really know; they could even vary from individual to individual.

Deviant as in necrophilia, bestiality, corprophilia and all sorts of other generally sickshit. Although on the surface and pubically most people will say those are larger problems (on a personal scale), such is the nature of homophobia, that many may be more repulsed to associate with a gay person then a person with those deviant sexual tendencies.

Also note that I don't attach deviant to the word gay.

Don't get edgy. Just get some reading comprehension.

 

[FortNinety]

I have to ask: how many of you here that actually support the law actually knows someone who's been adopted? I do, and from what he has told me, its a horrible, horrible experience. There are few good people out there who are willing to accept another person's child into their homes with open arms, and of those, many are lost due to legal bullshit and red-tape, like this proposed law.

My friend was raised in... surprise!... Texas, and the parents were inter-racial. Did he get flack from folks from school for having mixed parents, in addition to the fact that he was adopted? Yes. But guess what? He didn't give a fuck because both parents loved him with all their hearts.

All of you people who are for this bill should feel seriously ashamed of yourselves for denying children willing and nurturing parents. In fact, all of you should go and adopt a child right now (God knows there plenty that are "stuck in the system") and see first hand how much character such a decision requires.

 

[Nerevar]

Edit: I took the bait!

 

[levious]

Seriously Matlock, where do you get off being so sure of your opinion, analysis? Only way choice plays a role is in an individual feeling pressured to stay in the closet. Hardly a choice is it?

In my lifetime alone I've seen some pretty hateful, ignorant conclusions drawn by the psychological community about homosexuals, enough to make me never take them seriously on this subject. No offense if that's your field, just personal bias, and only relating to this subject really.

 

[Matlock]

Point taken, Lev. I try to stick with what someone purported as fact well enough to get it published--but I can see your side, too.

As for those who say that if you don't practice, you still are--re-read my statement. Predisposition is there, but whether or not you go do it is the deciding factor. There are bound to be some homosexuals who are in heterosexual relationships or just avoiding sex altogether.

And in those cases, they do not fit the definition of homosexuality in any way, shape, or form.

Sure, it's suppression, sure it's unhealthy, but that's not my point. My point is that it exists.

edit: for what it's worth, this is my same argument for violent people--predisposition with an ultimate responsibility in the action to be taken.

 

[Dilbert]

And once again the conservatives bait the liberals into another end run around the real issues by bringing up the question of nature and nurture and whether or not a choice.

Here's a hint, when people talk about Conservatives "framing the argument," this is it. The moment you allow yourself to be dragged into an argument about whether or not it's a choice, you've given them the win. You've allowed the situation to go into vague and meaningless territory on an argument that wouldn't even hold water if it *WERE* true.

Why in god's name do you people let yourselves fall for this EVERY DAMN TIME?

.

 

[gofreak]

Point taken, Lev. I try to stick with what someone purported as fact well enough to get it published--but I can see your side, too.

As for those who say that if you don't practice, you still are--re-read my statement. Predisposition is there, but whether or not you go do it is the deciding factor. There are bound to be some homosexuals who are in heterosexual relationships or just avoiding sex altogether.

And in those cases, they do not fit the definition of homosexuality in any way, shape, or form.

Sure, it's suppression, sure it's unhealthy, but that's not my point. My point is that it exists.

edit: for what it's worth, this is my same argument for violent people--predisposition with an ultimate responsibility in the action to be taken.

Bzzzzz. Wrong. Your sexuality is about a lot more than where you stick your pecker. It is a state of being, not a state of action. A homosexual is someone who is attracted to persons of the same sex. That's the deciding factor - who you are attracted to. Attraction comes without action. Attraction is something you have absolutely no control over, and does not require action for it to be real. Physically having sex with another person of the same gender is not required to make you a homosexual.

 

[maharg]

"And in those cases, they do not fit the definition of homosexuality in any way, shape, or form."

I have given up all hope for this thread, so I may as well take some side-issue bait.

Are you not straight until you have sex with a woman?

 

[OmniGamer]

Bzzzzz. Wrong. Your sexuality is about a lot more than where you stick your pecker. It is a state of being, not a state of action. A homosexual is someone who is attracted to persons of the same sex. That's the deciding factor - who you are attracted to. Attraction comes without action. Attraction is something you have absolutely no control over, and does not require action for it to be real. Physically having sex with another person of the same gender is not required to make you a homosexual.

Precisely...I would have replied, but when I said that in another thread and someone actually sounded puzzled, I figured there was no sense in trying to do the same here. I'll just simply quote two of my favorite lines from The Opposite of Sex...both from Lisa Kudrow's character Lucia.

Lucia: "Oh come on, I went to a Bar Mitzvah once, that doesn't make me Jewish"(regarding Ivan Sergei's character, who is gay, having sex with Christina Ricci's character and then claming he's bi-sexual)

and the priceless:

Lucia: "This is why I hate people"

 

[Matlock]

maharg: It seems you've forced a slippery slope on both sides of the debate. Can't really rebuke that, but I stand by my position that it is a combination of predisposition and action.

 

[gofreak]

I figured there was no sense in trying to do the same here.

And judging by Matlock's response, I guess you were right. Don't know if you're too proud to concede that you were wrong, Matlock, or that you're simply ignorant, but it's disheartening to know you can so blindly cling to such falsities.

Actually, scratch the ignorant part - you can't even claim ignorance here. You've been presented with the truth, but you reject it.

 

[Zaptruder]

maharg: It seems you've forced a slippery slope on both sides of the debate. Can't really rebuke that, but I stand by my position that it is a combination of predisposition and action.

Your position has been blasted out from under your feet.

You lose!

Well not really, but the result is the spectators will come to regard your prattle more warily and critically then before, so that if you continue on prattling in the same manner, your words lose relevancy. Not as bad as Eric-CGA or Olimario (who seems to at least be able to keep his mouth shut a bit more these days), but hey... you don't really want to be there.

 

[whytemyke]

Actually, not to be a dick here, but if we're going off on the micro-debate here, I'm actually starting to understand where Matlock is coming from. Everyone is jumping to conclusions about what he's saying, and I don't think you need to.

Look at it this way. Suppose a white blind kid is raised by a black family. Or better, use the Dave Chapelle sketch-- blind black guy raised by whites. Never sees himself and nobody ever tells him, so he just assumes he's like everyone else around. He's black but he's completely blind to it until he's actually confirmed it.

The same can be said with homosexuality. You can be a homosexual your entire life, but if you're raised in such a situation where homosexuality is scorned violently, and you're told that, say, it's natural to only like a couple women, well then you're going to just assume you're 'natural', too.

Ugh. This is hard to explain. Anyone ever read the Allegory of the Cave?

You don't know that what you are is homosexual until you're exposed to society. Same thing with being heterosexual... you don't know you're straight until people in society tell you that you are, or that what you do seems to identify with heterosexuality. So what Matlock is saying, I believe, isn't that you're either gay or straight from the beginning... that's not his argument. His argument is that you don't identify yourself as one of these until society allows you to. Gay people, just like straight people, do not form a sexual identity until society tells them that what they feel is right/wrong, and so, what I think Matlock is saying, is that you cannot discount society as a factor on homosexuality.

If you're completely blind to anything else and society tells you you're straight, how would you know the difference?


Gah. This is hard to explain and I'm gonna get railed for it. Just read the Allegory of the Cave and you'll understand what Matlock is saying. You don't KNOW whether you're gay or straight until you come into contact with society, therefore you cannot say that society plays no role in sexual identification.

That's not to derail from the simple point that this shouldn't keep people from being able to raise children. Nor is it taking into account that the REAL problem these people (Texas) have is whether parents are going to foster children into a feeling of homosexuality when there isn't one. Although the parents may be gay, whether that in and of itself is enough to influence a false sexual identification of a person (which I highly doubt, as sooo many people that are gay now were raised to be straight by their straight parents) is another argument as well.

 

[gofreak]

I see your point, I understand it - but I don't think that was Matlock's point. He wasn't talking about identity (at least he didn't mention it in the posts I was responding to), but actual sexuality. That came across pretty clearly in his posts.

How you identify yourself is a very complex issue..it entails self identity, the identity you present to the outside world etc. But it has nothing to do with whether or not one chooses to be gay. There's really a very simply definition for what being gay is.

 

[whytemyke]

I see your point, I understand it - but I don't think that was Matlock's point. He wasn't talking about identity (at least he didn't mention it in the posts I was responding to), but actual sexuality. That came across pretty clearly in his posts.

How you identify yourself is a very complex issue..it entails self identity, the identity you present to the outside world etc. But it has nothing to do with whether or not one chooses to be gay. There's really a very simply definition for what being gay is.

Oh yeah, of course, I'm not saying that society makes you who you are, gay or otherwise. But if what Matlock is saying is that to assume that people can identify their sexuality without society is hard to swallow... well, I'd agree with it. If, like you're saying, I misread what Matlock was saying (which is a VERY good possibility) well then, heh, you know where I stand. You cannot reject society as a factor in the identification, but to say that it plays a role in composing your natural self is something with which I would vehemently disagree. It's effect can only go so far as to how one would understand their natural self.

 

[Matlock]

whytemike: thanks for summing up what I thought in words better than what I could do.

 

[whytemyke]

No prob.

 

[maharg]

Someone does not need to have a word for what they are if they find themselves uninterested in or disgusted by sex with women to be gay. They are gay whether they can identify with it or not.

Point being, either he's arguing something that's pointless (that society gives them a word for it, well duh) or something that's wrong (that they need society to tell them they're gay before they are gay) according to many people's real life experience with BEING gay.

 

[gofreak]

Oh yeah, of course, I'm not saying that society makes you who you are, gay or otherwise. But if what Matlock is saying is that to assume that people can identify their sexuality without society is hard to swallow... well, I'd agree with it. If, like you're saying, I misread what Matlock was saying (which is a VERY good possibility) well then, heh, you know where I stand. You cannot reject society as a factor in the identification, but to say that it plays a role in composing your natural self is something with which I would vehemently disagree. It's effect can only go so far as to how one would understand their natural self.

Agreed. Gay people know this more than most, I think - the day you find out what "gay" is...well for me at least, it was one of the worst days of my life.

Matlock's posts were pretty clear, however - i'm still reeling at "if you don't act on it, you don't fall under the definition of homosexual" - if his intended meaning was different from that which he communicated, well then he just did a horrible job communicating, which I can accept.

 

[whytemyke]

Someone does not need to have a word for what they are if they find themselves uninterested in or disgusted by sex with women to be gay. They are gay whether they can identify with it or not.

Point being, either he's arguing something that's pointless (that society gives them a word for it, well duh) or something that's wrong (that they need society to tell them they're gay before they are gay) according to many people's real life experience with BEING gay.

No, they don't need a word for it, but they do need society to tell them what they are in terms of society. I guess my question to you is, can you still have gay people without heterosexual people? Or are they just simply called people? Society is what accentuates the difference, for without society there would be no 'homosexuality'... just 'sexuality'. With no ying there can be no yang, so to speak.

On another level, I think you're also dismissing a fair share of people who never came to grips with the fact they were gay until society convinced them of it. Many gay people may recognize, before coming to grips with it, that they could be different, but without society to tell them that indeed they are different, they would be none the wiser. So while people may not need society to tell them they're gay 'before they are gay', as you said, they may indeed need society to tell them they're gay before they understand that they're gay.

To outright dismiss the role of society in the growth of a person (which does involve both society and nature, otherwise anybody who's read Freud would tell you we'd probably just walk around having an orgy-porgy) is just as bad as someone that says that society is the only factor that 'creates' a homosexual person as we know it today.

I know you'll probably say something like "No, society can't make you gay," and then I'd say "but it can help you understand you're gay." For without understanding, do we really exist? This is a purely philosophical question concerning what the essence of homosexuality (or even humanity) is... is it a heightened understanding of ones social needs or simply where you stick your dick?

 

[gofreak]

This is a purely philosophical question concerning what the essence of homosexuality (or even humanity) is... is it a heightened understanding of ones social needs or simply where you stick your dick?

Attraction arises without understanding of said attraction, or how it compares to the experience of others (i.e. where it "fits in" in society), so sexuality exists without that understanding. Who you're attracted to is the essence of your sexuality, not whether you understand if it's the typical experience or not.

 

[maharg]

Whether a person comes to grips with being gay has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are gay. Does a tree need me to tell it it's a tree before it sprouts leaves? No. And a gay person doesn't need me to tell him that, hey, that guy over there would be pretty hot if I was a girl for him to come out and go "hey yeah, I'd like to jump his bones! OMG I'M GAY!"

Basically what you're doing is turning this into an argument of semantics. You're arguing that there is a difference between gay-but-not-sexually-active-because-confused and gay-but-active-because-aware-of-the-term-gay. You're drawing the line between gay and straight (or gay and bi) at a level that is far too abstract to be useful. Either the dude likes dudes or he doesn't, and society can't change that one way or the other.

Obviously society changes how you deal with it, but it doesn't change whether or not you are.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I guess my question to you is, can you still have gay people without heterosexual people? Or are they just simply called people? Society is what accentuates the difference, for without society there would be no 'homosexuality'... just 'sexuality'.

Good point. Just to chime in here, sexuality-based identity categories are a relatively recent phenomenon. There have always been propensities, behaviors and the various ways in which they function (privately or publicly) in a given society, but our contemporary ideas of "gay", "straight", etc. are fairly new. Also interesting to note is that "homosexuality" was coined before "heterosexuality". Ironic that the initially pathologized sexual identity category is what gave us the current term for opposite-sex attracted sexuality.

As a side note, though I'm "gay" I've never been entirely comfortable with that tag mainly because of the both its specificity and the cultural investment it assumes. I don't really believe in stable sexual identities anyway and was a fan of the term "queer" when academics suggested its use to work as an almost x variable of sexualities. That usage is (sadly) all but dead at this point. It seemn the conversation about sexuality has been brought down to the basest of levels in this political climate wherein "gay" people who might desire to have more nuanced takes on their sexuality are forced to simplify their stance due to pressures in order to present a united front to oppose the radical right.

That said, I think there's something extremely powerful about claiming a non-heterosexual sexual identity as one that's chosen. Its the easiest defense against state sanctioned discrimination to say that "I was born this way," but many academics and activists have argued for the subversive power that can be gained from rejecting heteronormativity outright in favor of something that's chosen rather than biologically assigned.

 

[whytemyke]

No need to denigrate my argument by saying I'm turning this into a debate about semantics. Fact is you're trying to dodge a logical argument by talking down semantics in the first place.

The simple fact is that people are saying that society doesn't factor into whether a person is gay or not. You're saying that people are gay regardless of what society is. I would then ask you to define being gay. Because if you're going to say that 'being gay' merely is short hand for having a predilection towards sexual activity with ones own gender, well, then I'd ask about the person who is gay but society has forced him/her to believe that they aren't. Are they still gay even though they don't have sex with the same gender? Of course they are, because they WANT to have sex with the same gender. But what if their fear of having sex with the same gender is so great that they do more than mask it... what if they truly do not want to have sex with their own gender for fear of admitting what they are? Then are they gay? Well sure they are! Because, biologically speaking, they SHOULD have sex with their own gender, but don't because they WANT have sex with their opposite gender.

Well now we're at a stage where you have people who have sex with others and don't really know why. How are they to understand whether it's by society or by nature? Suppose you have an average adult male. He goes and has sex with a girl, and feels bad. Does he feel bad because he doesn't like her and is gay? What if the same guy goes and has sex with a guy and dosen't feel right. Is it now because he's heterosexual, or because society has told him he should feel wrong? How do you ultimately KNOW that there is a difference in this person than any other straight/bi/gay person out there? This same argument could be used to deduce heterosexuality, too.

Wow... didn't see this coming at the beginning of my diatribe, but really, if you look at it, homosexuality is just a fetish. Insofar as heterosexuality is one, too. There really is no straight or gay in terms of sex, it's all just a matter of describing what your more favorite sexual activities are. In this manner, you can no easier find a right to consider gays a 'minority', as such, than you can consider people who only like doing it with a member of the opposite sex in missionary style as a minority, or people who go to BDSM clubs.

So in essence, heh, the 'right' wing is right in their assessment of sexuality for the wrong reasons. Is it a fetish? Yes. But is it one because people willingly choose to make it one? No. It's one because it feels right to certain people, just like there are some girls who like it more in the ass than in the vag, or only feel comfortable around big burly guys as opposed to the model-type guys. The 'left' is wrong for the right reasons though... that everyone is equal and should thus be treated as so.

In concluding, the entire texas law is awful because it has no logical right to persecute against 'gay' people anymore than it does to persecute against women who like to fuck cowgirl style.


I'm just coming to terms with this... actually just kinda figured it out as I'm debating here. If i'm wrong, or you feel I'm wrong, feel free to debate me and maybe you can sway my opinion. Heh... this actually shocks me that I've come to this conclusion.

therefore, without the label, there really are no 'gay' people, everyone is just different. Society then goes and accents those differences, making one feel inferior to another, when the difference in sexual preference really should be seen as the same as a difference in hair color or eye color. Without the role of society, there would be no reason to understand the difference in sexuality as being any different than whether you're an ass man or a fan of breasts.

 

[gofreak]

Wow... didn't see this coming at the beginning of my diatribe, but really, if you look at it, homosexuality is just a fetish. Insofar as heterosexuality is one, too. There really is no straight or gay in terms of sex, it's all just a matter of describing what your more favorite sexual activities are. In this manner, you can no easier find a right to consider gays a 'minority', as such, than you can consider people who only like doing it with a member of the opposite sex in missionary style as a minority, or people who go to BDSM clubs.

Not to take this off on a tangent, but how do you think love fits into sexuality, or vice versa? Is sexuality purely related to your physical attraction toward, and urges to have sex with people? And I mean love in the couply, romantic, sexual, boy-girl boy-boy girl-girl sense. Does sexuality encompass more types of attraction than just physical? I think it does, or at least that they are very closely linked. And thus you may not be able to simply define sexuality in terms of preferred sexual activity.

 

[whytemyke]

Well that's a good point, but let me ask you this. Do you have to have sex with someone to love them? Or is sex merely a fun and emotional way to convey your feelings with the person you love?

The problem with love is that it's SOOO varied and is incredibly hard to come to just one definition of love. But as you said, the kind of 'love' where you want to live your life with someone. I don't think you necessarily need to be having sex with them to know that you love them and want them in your life. I think it could be just as simple for a 'gay' man, who finds sex with other men as attractive, to have the love of his life be a woman who he never does more than lay on a couch and watch movies with. Just because there aren't the physical make-ups of romantic portrayal of your feelings doesn't mean that those feelings do not exist.

So really, the idea of love in all forms really just bolsters the idea that sexuality is separate from love. So keep in mind, too, that I'm not defining people by their preferred sexual activity (well, I am for categorical purposes but not for judgemental purposes). I would actually argue that love can exist without the terms identifiable with ones own sexuality. I just think it's the lucky people who actually fall in love with someone who also fits the sexual lifestyle they're looking for.

 

[teh_pwn]

Can't believe this is still going on.

Eventually this discrimination will be breeded out with successive generations. Or we can only hope.

When I hear people making fun of gays it reminds me of one of my grandmothers taking bad about black people. She's a nice person otherwise, but it seems to be a generational thing.

 

[Triumph]

Guys, guys... we're not focused nearly enough on the idiocy of conservative Texas redneck idiots. To get back on track, what say a friendly mod bans Olimario?

 

[FiRez]

When I hear people making fun of gays it reminds me of one of my grandmothers taking bad about black people.

Isn't the same thing.