Great Point
An unknown commenter on a random blog I was reading earlier had a great point. I wish I could credit him/her, but it didn't occur to me at the time to repost it, and now I'm not sure who or where it was.
It relates to homosexuality and whether it is a choice or not. Ted Haggard, the recently disgraced Evangelical leader should be absolute proof for anyone that being gay is something you are, not something you choose to be. Can you imagine any circumstances under which he would CHOOSE to be gay, given the extreme vehemence with which he preached against homosexuality? Don't you think that if there was any way for him to choose to be anything else, he would have?
I am convinced (and most studies I've read back this up) that being gay is something you are born, like blue-eyed or dark skinned or alergic to chocolate. The straight people who don't understand this, or who feel that gay sexual urges are dirty and should not be acted upon, ask yourself how many straight people could, if given the wish to even try, remain virginal their entire lives. Ask yourself why so many religious leaders of religions that require vows of chastity are caught having sex.
If you're not gay, be glad of that because of the intollerance faced by those who are born gay. But do not add to that intollerance.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 11/05/2006 08:08:00 PM
13 Comments:
Excellent point. However, a nitpick: I don't think it is that clearcut that allergies are entirely something you are born with. I think environmental influences contribute greatly very early on, including in utero and infancy; for example, it seems to me that statistics show an increase in allergies -- or perhaps it was asthma? -- among those who are breastfed verus those who are bottlefed.
Doesn't take away from the main point, which is that homosexuality is certainly not a conscious choice, but a biological urge.
Sunday, November 05, 2006 10:35:00 PM
Good catch, Ross.
That may have been a bad analogy on my part. On the other hand, in my defense, the only people I've ever known who actually had an honest to goodness allergy to chocolate had it from birth.
But perhaps not my best example. Thanks for keeping me on my toes!
Liam.
Sunday, November 05, 2006 10:56:00 PM
Hey, nitpicking is about all I'm good for anymore. :-)
Did you catch the American Dad episode last night, where Stan tries to join the Log Cabin Republicans (a gay republican PAC) so he can speak at the RNC? He says something like "Gay is not a choice. Believe me, I tried!"
Monday, November 06, 2006 5:15:00 PM
Nope. I don't watch American Dad. With 5 children (3 here in school), we don't have a whole lot of time for TV, and that's not a show we've acquired.
And for me, Gay isn't a choice either. I tried.
;-)
(OK, no, I didn't really, unless you count the rumor about me at RPI spread by M and Grace).
Liam.
Monday, November 06, 2006 7:11:00 PM
This kind of goes back to what I have been talking about (not here, I know that blogspot is powerful, but it isn't psychic yet).... you can't cure horney. Not in hetero people and not in homo people.
Janet
Tuesday, November 07, 2006 6:58:00 AM
And another thing.... kidding.
I have been thinking about the vehement response that homosexuality gets from some otherwise very obviously hetero people. I think that at its most caring, the response is from a place of protecting children. There is a common perception that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked... not the 6 year old type of pedophilia, but the 16 year old type.
I can't (and won't) dismiss this out of hand (their objections) because of the general acceptance that attractivness fades with age (particularly perceived attractiveness by men). I understand and usually agree that the sixteen year old girl is going to be 'sexier' than I am at 36. But, we have agreed as a society that girls under 18, no matter how sexy, are off limits to adults.
We, again as a society (no one asks my opinion for some reason), have marginalized fully 8 to 10% of our population by making all homosexual relationships unacceptable. By sidelining this portion of our population, we have removed the otherwise accepted norms for relationships (agewise).
So, I disagree with the marginalization of the 'moral' portion of the homosexual population, particularly 'married' couples and celebate homosexuals. To group them with the people that stop at rest areas to get blown by strangers isn't fair to them. It also isn't fair to our children. They are safe with homosexuals who agree with the norms of our society. They are no more (or arguably less) a risk than your average person.
(I ramble, and often my points are lost... quite a shame.)
Janet
Tuesday, November 07, 2006 7:09:00 AM
If we are all born sinners, with urges to steal, urges to hate, urges to rape, urges to kill, urges to dominate, urges to burn, and urges towards homosexual acts, then why should we accept some and not the others and inact laws to make these legally and socially acceptable?
Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:35:00 AM
I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at the problem. We DON'T pass laws to make all of our faults and foibles illegal, only those which damage others without their consent or approval.
So we make it illegal to take the property of another person, but we do not make it illegal to give into temptation and have unprotected sex because a partner is available and a condom is not.
We make it illegal to do bodily harm and/or cause the death of another person, but we don't make it illegal to drink (so long as we do not also engage in some activity where our drunkeness is likely to cause unfair risk to others).
And I'll point out another thing: By your argument it would be just as legitimate to create laws against creating laws against homosexuality, because you included hate in the same list as homosexual urges. I think it's clear, in spite of what many claim, that quite a large number of those who decry homosexual marriage truly do have hatred in their hearts for those who are born gay.
The question I have to ask is which of those sins is more likely to infringe upon the rights of another person? A homosexual is no more likely to infringe upon someone else's rights based on his or her sexual orientation than a heterosexual is (and is just as subject to other laws against rape and assault when they do). On the other hand, a homophobe is statistically FAR more likely to refuse to hire a homosexual, to say nothing of some of the less enlightened who are willing to beat and even lynch gays.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether this is a CHRISTIAN nation or a nation of free access to religion in which we agree to abide by certain common rules to prevent anyone from violating the rights of others. If the first premise is true, (with which I absolutely disagree) it allows for legislating of Christian morality, and allows us to pass laws against gay marriage, drinking, smoking, extra-marital sex, not going to church on Sunday, and anything else codified as sinful or improper behavior by whichever Christian sect you're dealing with.
The second is predicated on personal freedom (which I truly believe was at the heart of our Founding Father's intent in forming our then nascent nation), and says "We can prohibit smoking where that smoke would infringe on the air space rights of non-smokers, but we can't make smoking entirely illegal".
I honestly don't see why anyone cares. There are a lot of behaviors that I don't approve of, teach my children against, and have never (and plan never to) engage in, for instance drug use. Nevertheless, I don't see that they should be illegal. I am free to choose not to drink to excess and should have reasonable opportunity not to be forced to do so and/or be killed on the roadways by someone else who does. But I absolutely don't believe it should not be YOUR right (generic, not speaking to anyone in specific) to get blotto every weekend if that's your preference.
So, I have no intention of ever marrying another man. I have no urge or interest to have sex with another man. I would find it most distasteful to do so. But I also feel no attraction towards women I consider ugly either, but I don't think it should be illegal for OTHER men to choose to date or marry or have sex with them.
Gay marriage has zero effect on my life, zero impact on my marriage. And the institution of marriage is harmed far more by our massive divorce rate than it could ever be by gay marriage.
Liam.
Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:01:00 AM
The blanket acceptance has effected our educational system, thus is does effect us all, now. You make a good point though, and I agree that not all bad behavior can be legislated. When our country figures out how to respect all religious rights without banning Christmas while allowing Wiccan prayer meetings in our public schools, then I will no longer complain. I do not accept your theory that homosexuality is a born trait though, unless I consider that it could be a birth defect, I do not know. I do not care to research the subject.
Have you seen them kissing in public? Have your 5 children seen them too? Your life is effected by gays, as is your blog. Do you know the divorce rate of gay marriages? I do believe that it is near 100%
The loophole has been created now, allowing citizens to change their birth certificates to reflect whichever gender they prefer with a simple doctor's note. Leaving us nothing to debate.
Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:22:00 AM
I believe when you actually look closely, most individual instances are internally consistant, and it only appears unfairly slanted against Christianity when you compare apples to organges.
For instance, there's much discussion of prayer in schools not being allowed, but in fact what is not allowed is ORGANIZED prayer in schools. If children wish to pray in school, they are absolutely free to do so (and having been a lazy student in high school, I can tell you it happens a lot when exams come along :-) ).
On the other hand, a homeroom teacher or principle should not be leading a prayer to the Christian God to start the day any more than the children should be led to face Mecca and pray to Allah or directed to offer thanks to Gaea (or however that's spelled) or Vishnu or anyone else.
Public sponsored Christmas displays on public property are no longer allowed, but neither are displays of solstice icons nor any other religion's personal holy icons.
Common rooms in community buildings (town halls, public schools and the like) in my experience are generally either open to or closed to religion-based groups on an equal basis. If a Christian group is refused the right to use the public meeting room in the town hall because of religious affiliation, then the local Muslim group likely is as well.
This is not to say that there are no cases of bias either towards or against Christianity, but we should take them down on a case by case basis, not compare the Menorah in the window of a shop on Main Street against the denial of a Christmas tree in front of the Town Hall and conclude that the rules are unfairly slanted against Christianity.
Now, as to seeing men kissing in public, understand that I had quite a large number of gay friends in college, of both genders. I ran with a very open and inclusive crowd. I have seen men kissing in public and in private, and I find it no more or less objectionable than seeing straight people kiss in public. A quick public kiss is perfectly fine. Passionate making out is not proper. And that applies regardless of which two people are displaying their affection for each other in a public place.
As to the divorce rate of gay marriages, they have not been around long enough to have a fair comparison. It's only been a few years since VT created the civil union, the first "gay marriage equivalent" in the U.S. At that time, a lot of activists in the gay community (yes, there are some, as there are in the Republican party, the Democratic party, and just about any other large grouping of people) rushed to partake. Certainly many of these unions were undertaken for political purposes rather than for good reasons to get married, it isn't surprising that a large number of those early unions have not lasted.
But until we've had 10, 15, 25 years of gay marriage, we won't really have a fair basis for comparison (in either direction) how many gay marriages last vs straight ones.
And this is the first I've heard of being allowed to change your birth certificate, or that making you legally a different gender. I'm not disputing it, but I'd love to see a reference to it.
Liam.
Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:38:00 PM
http://newsinfo.inq7.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=31213
Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:43:00 PM
The only justice I can see in the ability to change your gender on your birth certificate, without an operation, is that men will finally experience labor and vaginal birth. This may also put a few cracks the glass ceiling theories.
Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:57:00 PM
Interesting article, thanks for posting it.
I want to point out two things. First, it's not a law yet, it's merely being considered.
But second, it is a common misconception that gay people and transgender people are the same. They are actually not.
Gay people are the gender they are, they're comfortable and happy with the gender that they are, they just recognize that they are sexually attracted to members of their own gender.
Trans-genders, on the other hand, honestly believe they were born into the wrong body. They do not consider themselves as attracted to their own gender, they consider themselves to honestly BE the other gender. They tend to live their entire lives as the other gender, even if they don't have the resources to have "gender reassignment" surgery.
By the way, the third category is "cross dressers". These actually tend to be straight men (predominently) who derive a certain calmness or sexual gratification from dressing in female clothing, but who generally have no wish to have sexual contact with another male, and who do not consider themselves to be female... just to enjoy female clothing. I think this is less common in women because it isn't considered unusual for women to wear "men's" clothing, so it simply isn't seen as shocking or strange to see a woman in pants and an oxford shirt.
But back to the point: The article clearly applies to trans-genders, not gay people. The rule being considered (according to that article) requires the person to have lived exclusively as the opposite gender for two years.
Also, there's no indication that this change would alter the marriage rules (it'd certainly be an interesting case), the idea is generally that someone who is so certain that they are actually the other gender in all but the physical, and who lives their life that way, can change their ID papers (drivers license, etc) so that when they're pulled over, they don't have problems having to prove they (dressed as "Mary") are who their drivers license (listed as "Mark") say they are.
They're quite different, and the "living as the other gender for two years" requirement is probably significantly more work than most people (gay or otherwise) are likely to be willing to go through simply to be able to marry their same-gender partner.
But thanks for the link, it's definitely interesting and I hadn't heard of it!
Liam.
Thursday, November 09, 2006 1:33:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home