221–230 of 495 posts
Not an expert here but, IF a gay gene existed, wouldn't have it been evolved into extinction?
Doesn't the question apply to straight people, and anyone else, who don't reproduce?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read this as well intentioned but ultimately poor reasoning. Things that are intrinsic about a person are a good baseline, no-question quality that we should not antagonize people for. Sexual orientation, race, disabilities, gender, appearance etc. These seem like important issues to get right on civic protections. Saying we must offer respect to everyone's choices is just wrong. We certainly don't want to ensure s…
To go further, Veteran status is a choice, but we choose to protect it in order to encourage that choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big question that this viewpoint misses is what to do with fears that certain things "turn people gay" and the flip side of that fear: that the straight community might use successful conversion therapy to eliminate the gay community. All of a sudden both of those camps have ammunition for their points. Saying that it's "genetically determined" (or at least innately determined) very nicely sidestepped that. To th…
I don't think it is possible to turn someone who is straight gay, anymore than it is possible to turn someone who is gay straight. The exception would be where they're bi, but they would already have had some interest in the same sex, and it wouldn't have come from social conditioning.
Kind of hopeful we can stop using genetics as a way of justifying queer peoples' existence. Whether it's conditioning, a choice, or genetics, shouldn't really be a factor in how you treat queer people.
If you want people to be treated equally, wouldn't you want their existence to be justified? It's difficult to think of a PC analogy here, so maybe... super villain mind control device strapped to someone's head. Provably unjustified behaviors due to the mind control device implies the ethical thing to do is try to remove the device. Treating someone normally implies an implicit belief that they're normal. Sound biol…
Who shouldn’t be treated equally?
People latched onto the idea that sexuality is genetically determined because it seemed like the only viable way to defend themselves against rampant religious bigotry and oppression. It was a rope dangling into the well you were trapped in, and the well was filling with acid, but if you could just manage to climb that rope then you'd make it out. The reasoning went something like "if I can prove that sexuality is ge…
The big question that this viewpoint misses is what to do with fears that certain things "turn people gay" and the flip side of that fear: that the straight community might use successful conversion therapy to eliminate the gay community. All of a sudden both of those camps have ammunition for their points. Saying that it's "genetically determined" (or at least innately determined) very nicely sidestepped that. To th…
But nature does not care whether it’s convenient or not. If this gets disproven, then what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That being said, I still doubt that people really have a choice over their sexuality. My response to people who argue about this is generally: "So, when did you decide you liked long legs more than large breasts?" Choose whatever pairing of sexual characteristics drives home the choice to the person involved. Like so many things about "sexuality", at some point we notice them, but rarely do we actively choose them.
That's not much of an argument. A preference for long legs vs. large breasts is just that: a preference . What if Long Legs is a meth addict and Large Breasts is the mother of your children? Or likewise. At that point it sounds pathological. That's why I don't like the "gay gene" argument and never did, not even when it was the hot new thing among assimilationists. It's fundamentally flawed, and not only because it s…
Second, people are very drawn to having excuses for things, it's much more comfortable to say there's nothing that you can do as opposed to saying there's something you can do but you just didn't. Both of those things are more comfortable than aggressively replying that you have every right to do the thing you did.
Not everyone wants to fight everything all the time.
I thought they determined already it was a hormone released in the womb during pregnancy, similar to left-handedness. That’s how you can get identical twins, but one is straight and the other is gay.
That is a pretty self-contradicting statement in multiple ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People shouldn't be oppressed for their sexuality full stop, regardless of reason. Completely agreed. I don't think we should shy away from trying to understand and explain it though. It's been a puzzling question that people have tried to grapple with for a long time now. I think it would be interesting to understand humans better. And.. if it is definitively proven that it is nature and not nurture, it might make…
If people changed their minds in the face of the science, we'd have been putting real work into decarbonization since 10 years ago at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not much of an argument. A preference for long legs vs. large breasts is just that: a preference . What if Long Legs is a meth addict and Large Breasts is the mother of your children? Or likewise. At that point it sounds pathological. That's why I don't like the "gay gene" argument and never did, not even when it was the hot new thing among assimilationists. It's fundamentally flawed, and not only because it s…
First, you're assuming those things are preferences. We don't actually have any real evidence that your statement is true for anyone, much less that it's true for everyone. Second, people are very drawn to having excuses for things, it's much more comfortable to say there's nothing that you can do as opposed to saying there's something you can do but you just didn't. Both of those things are more comfortable than agg…
People latched onto the idea that sexuality is genetically determined because it seemed like the only viable way to defend themselves against rampant religious bigotry and oppression. It was a rope dangling into the well you were trapped in, and the well was filling with acid, but if you could just manage to climb that rope then you'd make it out. The reasoning went something like "if I can prove that sexuality is ge…
I read this as well intentioned but ultimately poor reasoning. Things that are intrinsic about a person are a good baseline, no-question quality that we should not antagonize people for. Sexual orientation, race, disabilities, gender, appearance etc. These seem like important issues to get right on civic protections. Saying we must offer respect to everyone's choices is just wrong. We certainly don't want to ensure s…
That's false though. Being intrinsically an asshole doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent people from being assholes. You have no more reason to believe that some people aren't intrinsically assholes, and that leads to the next part of my argument...
> Saying we must offer respect to everyone's choices is just wrong.
You're constructing a horrendous straw-man here. The distinction you're missing is the boundary between anti-social behavior and pro-social behavior. Homophobia is inherently anti-social. Queer sexuality is not. Murder and theft are anti-social. Sex with someone who looks like you is not.
> The argument to ban gay conversion camps seems much harder to make if one believes identity is purely a choice.
No it isn't, because the argument to ban gay conversion camps is based on the fundamental principle of consent. That's why the predominant conversation is about _minors_ and _forced_ conversion therapy with additional important conversations about whether adults are able to consent to it.