should not pro choice be pro choice about everything

just a thought

but hey

what do i know

.

ONLY STRAIGHT PEOPLE KNOW IF BEING GAY IS A CHOICE

I'm a bit confused. Forgive me if I take an issue that so divides people, ends relationships and seperates families, seriously.

Saying gays are gay by choice is a judgement, no? So are you saying you didn't mean to stand up for that agrument? Please explain what you really meant if it was a joke? I think if you are going to joke about something this serious, it helps to know what you mean by the joke.

If the joke was on those that use the choice argument, then I might understand though I don't think it helps to make light of their side even when it's uninformed, because it just makes them dig in further.

Interesting observation. Never thought of it that way.

I find the whole 'choice' discussion strange.

It seems like its usually all about anti-gay people trying to say gays should just 'choose' to be straight, and be done with it; and gay people saying 'we can't, we were born this way'. Amiright?

So if these straight people think gays should choose to be straight...

...can we choose to be non-sexual? Or choose to never fall in love? Choose to never experience sexual attraction or sexual desire? Or, if we can't help our desire, choose to not act on it? Can a straight choose to be gay?

Choice? You bet. Everyone has a choice on their lifestyle. My question is, are we born a certain way...i.e. product of our genes or environment.

You say a 'choice on their lifestyle', and to me 'lifestyle' means actions.

What about feelings, thoughts, and desires?


I think we are a product of genes, of environment, and of ourselves. My views probably seem convoluted to the typical A vs B view of things:

I personally think homosexuality amongst caring couples is perfectly moral. It is more ethical than the heterosexual couples that are not as caring for each other.

I do think that there are genes that incline a person towards homosexuality.

Despite our genes, our actions and even our feelings potentially are a matter of choice. The more I dwell on my attraction to women, the stronger my attraction to women becomes. If I wanted to become less attracted to women, like a celibate monk, I believe that many years of careful regulation of my thoughts would lead to less attraction to women, despite my genes.

So in the end, I think that any kind of sexuality can be reshaped by choice, in theory. This may offend some homosexuals or pro-tolerance people, but only because they view these statements in the context of a particular debate. I don't even agree with the assumptions behind the debate. I think there are some more important questions, like:

1) So what??? So what if a homosexual could, in theory, reshape their habits of feeling and thinking? WHY would they want to do that? And if they feel driven by persecution or guilt or the desire for acceptance, shouldn't that be the first thing they should address in their psyche? Wouldn't cultivating self-acceptance be a far more beneficial use of energy than trying to reshape such deep and fundamental drives?

and

2) Isn't it very much like suggesting a heterosexual can stop being heterosexual? See, I believe a heterosexual can become asexual, but who actually does this?? Many people in celibate religious groups believe that they have, and time and again we find examples of them failing.

I think this has a lot to do with this issue. How we grow up can have a big impact on our sexuality and how we use it. In the case of homosexuality, a bad relationship with a same sex parent can lead to the person looking for that love they never felt with him or her elsewhere. Likewise bad experiences with the opposite sex, can cause a person to seek comfort in the same sex, as they feel they are more likely to get their needs met that way.

Also, beyond that there is something to be said for the way the culture promotes homosexuality, and plays up the whole tolerance thing. Look at how many people in Hollywood are either openly gay or gay but hiding it. I don't think this is by coincidence, the people who promote this lifestyle know exactly what they are doing in doing so.

The more they blur they line as to what is normal and accepted, the more confused the populace will be, and the more likely they will accept the messages being put out. You see this in all kinds of aspects of sexuality, body image, when to have sex, etc. What it's resulted in, is the downfall of morals, values and the overall family unit, which was the whole idea behind all this from the start.

You may think I'm crazy for saying that, but if you look at how society has changed in the last 40 years, and how the media has changed in that same time frame, you will see a quite clear connection. As the media has gone, so has society gone with it. The general populace just hasn't realized it, because it's been very gradual. Little by little they've changed the standards, the norms, until there were no real norms left apart from those that they created. We have become the proverbial frogs in a pot of slowly boiling water, and we've been boiled to death by those in power.

Now, having said all of that, I will say that homosexuals could be treated better then they now are. The whole turn or burn type of argument isn't really gonna help anything on either side of the issue. There has to be love as well, without that you're not going to accomplish anything except push those you wish to reach away.

Yes but wait, I'm curious, did you not say that the more you dwell on your attraction to women, why would you be dwelling on it. Anyone can force their mind to do something, just don't know why they would unless it was like to quit smoking.

And if you were to become a monk it would not be you that was influencing your decision to be less attracted to women, it would be that religion. One can do whatever they set their mind to, but that doesn't erase the original attraction, it only replaces it with what you trained yourself to do, no?

If it was you alone with no influence at all wouldn't you still be forcing that change?

You can not chose something you are not attracted to with out some sort of emotional guilt being pressed upon you, unless it's by force.

I wasn't being very clear, I was also refering to subconscious habits. Not like I'm sitting here deliberately dwelling on my attraction to women, but that I have unconscious habits of thought which continuously reinforce my attraction.

As far as "why I do it"... it seems natural and automatic for me to do it. I don't have any motivation to try to change this. I like being heterosexual, and I like finding women attractive.



I'm not sure I understand - are you saying that the environment provided by the religion may be instrumental in any changes? Or that a person loses their autonomy after joining a religion like that? or something else?



That's something for me to think about. I wonder how much of our desire is 'the original attraction', and how much is created and reinforced through time?

I suppose I'm suggesting that I agree with you, but that this may be most of what attraction and desire is composed of. Which leads to another opinion I have, which is sometimes unpopular in the gay community (though I strongly support gay rights) - attraction amongst gays is just like attraction amongst heterosexual: it is shaped by your previous experiences.



Well, you'd have to have a motive, I agree! And I also don't personally see any good reason for having a motive. So I'm totally not trying to say anything about what gay people 'should' do, not at all, I'm just stating an opinion about what is possible.

Kleisto,

I agree with most of your post, though you seem to have a generally disapproving attitude towards the rise of acceptance of homosexuality (and I generally approve of any couple who finds love and is good to each other).

Your post raises another question for me, in the discussion of 'choice'.

Consider a young person who has homosexual desires, whether influenced by genetics or otherwise.

I'm saying that such a person could, in theory, come to understand their desires and shape them. But ASKING them to do so would be akin to asking a young heterosexual person to understand their desires and shape them. I say its possible in theory, but in practice, you can only take that so far!

But lets take another step closer to reality: what if this young person is raised by parents who think its a 'filthy sin', and in a community who feels likewise. They don't even understand their desires to begin with, and now they are burdened by self hatred and other negative thoughts and feelings?

At that point, any thought of 'reshaping' one's desires would be built on self-denial, judgement, negativity - thats is completely not what I'm talking about. I don't think anything good would come of that.

Wow, who 'aren't' you insulting in this post? Of course it couldn't be that human beings are recognizing the diversity in this universe and or that they are evolving beyond the thinking of the 12th century? Nope there just stupid gullible people being duped by those scheming gays... ugh

The reason for a lot of this diversity though is coming from what we are being taught, both in schools and in the media. They've been trying to reshape our minds in a million different ways over time, from what we eat and drink, to what we wear and how we view each other. As one could see if they look at the world now, it's been working.

I might add that, all this evolving you speak of, has it really been all that helpful to us as a nation and world? Look at the number of broken homes, single parents, divorces, etc. All this is a product of the "evolved" state of society. Is that really a good thing? I somehow don't think so.

I thought he was basically saying that 1) people are shaped by their culture, and that 2) hollywood plays a huge role in this in the US, that 3) there has been a deliberate effort by many people to cultivate greater acceptance of gays, and 4) that he thinks this is a bad thing.

I agree with 3 out of 4.

Put it this way, when have you ever known the media to push ideas and standards that won't benefit them in some way? Anything they are going to promote, they generally have a reason behind it that has nothing to do with our good, including homosexuality.

My previous post was out of sync... i agree with the above.



This is why I support gay marriage.

What you say is just what I feel is the problem in how we view issues such as homosexuality. There is too much hate, and not enough love, and as a result very little discussion about the matter beyond right and wrong

Don't get me wrong, a person ought to be told the truth on such matters, however it has to be done a certain way. When or if I ever become a father, I'd like for my kids to be able to come to me with anything on their mind, to be able to discuss things openly with me regardless of what the issue is. Once having established that, there can be more of a dialogue between myself and my kids, about the issue at hand.

Does that make sense?

Okay. I don't disagree. "Their" motives are selfish. We should never assume that something is in our best interest just because it is advocated by the media. But we should also never assume that something is a bad idea just because it is advocated by the media.

Slightly tangentially, I would discriminate between 'promoting homosexuality' and 'promoting tolerance of homosexuality', though the two might be intermingled. I think that promoting tolerance is a good thing.

You do raise a point about not everything being bad cause the media promotes it. However, I would add to that that though not everything promoted is bad, there's a chance that they put their own spin on said good promotions as well.

As for the other part, I do believe the two ideas are more or less intermingled, though tolerance itself isn't bad per se. It's tolerance of what that becomes the issue.