Is being straight or gay genetic and fixed?

Jun 2016
1,805
England, 200 yards from Wales
And why should be gays be accepted by mainstream society? What right does anyone to force their lifestyle on another and tell them they have to accept it? Can alcoholics that don't get DUIs do that? Drug addicts? Bigamists? Chronic masturbators?
If someone is following a certain lifestyle that doesn't injure anyone else, how is that forcing anything on anyone?
Incidentally what does accept mean? Not accepting could be anything from preferring not to socialise with certain people to not employing them to locking them up to beating them up?

NOBODY has a right to make others believe what they do has to be accepted by the greater society.
Why does anybody have a right not to accept what others choose to do if, as I say, it doesn't injure anyone else?
What business in that case is it of mine or anyone else's?

Can one hate the lifestyle choice of being hemophiliac? Or not agree with the choice to have Aspergers? Absolutely not, those individuals didn't choose to have that affliction, therefore they should not be penalized for it. And THAT is why the "Its not a choice" talking point exists. Even though its largely nonsense.
I think there is a small subsection of the overall community where its not a choice. For them there is either a psychological or hormonal reason for it. But that refers to those individuals who are ONLY attracted to same sex, which is actually a very small part of the overall societal community that self identify as gay or lesbian (versus bisexual, a term and lifestyle looked down upon by the gay and lesbian communities).
Why 'hate', seems a bit emphatic?
I don't think it's been spelled out before but there seems to be a feeling that if homosexuality is not fixed, but has more or less choice in it, there is less reason to 'accept' it?
Why?
 
Jul 2016
8,941
USA
If someone is following a certain lifestyle that doesn't injure anyone else, how is that forcing anything on anyone?
Incidentally what does accept mean? Not accepting could be anything from preferring not to socialise with certain people to not employing them to locking them up to beating them up?

Why does anybody have a right not to accept what others choose to do if, as I say, it doesn't injure anyone else?
What business in that case is it of mine or anyone else's?
Do you see me calling to ban anything? No. But this isn't about legality, its about acceptance. The propaganda message is that I should accept it because its not their fault, its not a choice. I do not accept that, because for most it is a choice.

Why 'hate', seems a bit emphatic?
I don't think it's been spelled out before but there seems to be a feeling that if homosexuality is not fixed, but has more or less choice in it, there is less reason to 'accept' it?
Why?
Because the preexisting reasons to hate on homosexuality was seeing it as a deviant lifestyle choice. One, the behavior itself was degenerate (at least how it used to be seen). Worse, they thought they did it by choice, so even worse.

To get those people to accept it meant professional LGBT lobbyist not just convincing them that although deviating from the norm it was benign and not degenerate (which I can accept), but that it wasn't a choice at all. It worked. By and large, most people bought that message hook, line, and sinker.

I did not. Because I study history and modern anthropology. I know that more many in the past, and present, it absolutely was/is a choice. So when individuals try to claim otherwise, I give my two cents to show they're full of it.
 
Jun 2016
1,805
England, 200 yards from Wales
Do you see me calling to ban anything? No. But this isn't about legality, its about acceptance. The propaganda message is that I should accept it because its not their fault, its not a choice. I do not accept that, because for most it is a choice.
I'm not suggesting you are wanting to ban anything, I just wonder what you mean by acceptance.

Because the preexisting reasons to hate on homosexuality was seeing it as a deviant lifestyle choice. One, the behavior itself was degenerate (at least how it used to be seen). Worse, they thought they did it by choice, so even worse.
To get those people to accept it meant professional LGBT lobbyist not just convincing them that although deviating from the norm it was benign and not degenerate (which I can accept), but that it wasn't a choice at all. It worked. By and large, most people bought that message hook, line, and sinker.
Actually I haven't heard any gay people make that argument, though if you say you have I'll take your word for it. It does seem an odd argument for them to use though - almost like saying 'we know what we are (or do) is wrong, but we can't help it, genetics you know, so please excuse us'.
If I were gay (which I am not) I am sure I would prefer something along the lines of ' what we are, and do, is our business, we don't involve the unwilling or harm anyone, so what is it to do with anyone else, to disapprove. Whether it is genetic or chosen, or a mix of both, is irrelevant'
Personally, as a lifelong heterosexual (though a bit past it now) I don't expect everyone else to share my taste in sexual activity any more than my taste in music or food.
Actually I'm more concerned with the music, I have to listen to that in shops and pubs.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,328
Sydney
there is hardly any question about homosexuality being a deviant life style , ok , so what !
the issues are not morality , it's legal
I love my sisters , they are great women and I get along with them better than 99% of the other women
can I marry them ?.... if not why ?
some of my nieces are really hot girls , they seems to like me !
can I make a pass at them and take it from there ?

if conventional morality is brushed aside , them maybe some explicit ground rules should be laid

My heart wish is to marry my car ....I love it so much !
 
Jul 2016
8,941
USA
I'm not suggesting you are wanting to ban anything, I just wonder what you mean by acceptance.
Synonyms for acceptance include embracing, welcoming, pleasing. Another way of saying they have to find it okay. I don't want anyone telling me what I have to like. Tell me I can't ban it, can't attack it physically, etc., per the Constitution, then I'm fine with that, as long as nobody else's rights are trampled. But I draw the line when people tell me that unless I find agree with it then I'm intolerant. That is just bullying, and I'll not have that.

Actually I haven't heard any gay people make that argument, though if you say you have I'll take your word for it. It does seem an odd argument for them to use though - almost like saying 'we know what we are (or do) is wrong, but we can't help it, genetics you know, so please excuse us'.
If I were gay (which I am not) I am sure I would prefer something along the lines of ' what we are, and do, is our business, we don't involve the unwilling or harm anyone, so what is it to do with anyone else, to disapprove. Whether it is genetic or chosen, or a mix of both, is irrelevant'
Personally, as a lifelong heterosexual (though a bit past it now) I don't expect everyone else to share my taste in sexual activity any more than my taste in music or food.
Actually I'm more concerned with the music, I have to listen to that in shops and pubs.
I have no issues with anything anybody does in their privacy, as long as nobody else's rights are negatively affected. But I draw the line when its shoved in my face in a completely false manner ("its not a choice") and then I'm lectured or insulted or ostracized for speaking out against it. I'm not accusing you, but its very common now, when SJW lose their minds because someone isn't using the trendy and approved LGBT lobbying newspeak (or whatever else).
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,328
Sydney
I'm not responsible , too much TV , not in control of my life , I'm not responsible , I'm irresponsible
What kind of stupid argument is that ,
be who you are and make a stand !
anything else is an agument for re-education with medication
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,722
Seattle
Why would autistic people be treated with fairness? Life isn't fair. They are significantly handicapped, the more on the spectrum the more they cannot fit into life as a whole.


.
I think for autistic people, soon genetic syndromes, genosets, explaining their condition will be found. And like today we accept people with Down syndrome, because - not their fault that they got that extra 21st! meiotic fault - we shall see and understand why someone is afraid of social interaction or has poor eye contact. Then, as it always comes with knowledge, there will be more acceptance.

But you tend to mix different things, some inborn conditions and sexual preferences. OK, a gay man chooses to marry another one. How is it “ forcing their lifestyle” upon the community? We used to have one gay married couple living in our residential area, how did their personal life affect us? As community members they were pretty involved, what they did at home no one saw as no one observes what heterosexual couples do, either. And we never were friends or visited each other, but if they felt safe holding hands in our neighborhood, like we do, this is probably all that they were asking from the community.

And why should be gays be accepted by mainstream society? What right does anyone to force their lifestyle on another and tell them they have to accept it? Can alcoholics that don't get DUIs do that? Drug addicts? Bigamists? Chronic masturbators?

NOBODY has a right to make others believe what they do has to be accepted by the greater society. The best they can do is try to manipulate them into believing its okay.
So what punishment would you mete out to chronic masturbators, lol? What about buyers of life-size dolls?

And why didn’t you add simple heterosexual cheaters into the group? Or is cheating acceptable as long as it is between heterosexuals? Ask divorce lawyers. I’d say, it is worse, because kids suffer.

And why do you lump in together drinking, drugs, sex, and avoid, say, people who carry guns so haphazardly that they spontaneously discharge? Are they a smaller threat to the people around them than non-DUI drinkers? They look OK but put others at risk. This is pure choice (unlike drinking or drugs). (Today some country singer accidentally killed himself. People are sorry, I am glad it was him who suffered and not people around).

NOBODY has a right to make others believe what they do has to be accepted by the greater society. The best they can do is try to manipulate them into believing its okay.

.
If people do something privately and don’t harm themselves, are not sadistic, and are consenting adults, it is totally their right. I don’t want to hear the details of their lives, but it doesn’t bother me, either.
 
Jun 2016
1,805
England, 200 yards from Wales
Synonyms for acceptance include embracing, welcoming, pleasing. Another way of saying they have to find it okay. I don't want anyone telling me what I have to like. Tell me I can't ban it, can't attack it physically, etc., per the Constitution, then I'm fine with that, as long as nobody else's rights are trampled. But I draw the line when people tell me that unless I find agree with it then I'm intolerant. That is just bullying, and I'll not have that.
OK, I understand you're not talking about any sort of banning or attacking.
But can't acceptance mean something less positive than 'embracing' or 'welcoming', just not taking any particular interest. Lots of people no doubt do things that don't attract or interest me, I don't feel I have to positively embrace or welcome them, or particularly like what they do, just accept it's none of my business and I don't need to have any particular point of view at all.
The famous Mrs Patrick Campbell approach I suppose, "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do, so long as they don't do it on the street and frighten the horses?"

I have no issues with anything anybody does in their privacy, as long as nobody else's rights are negatively affected. But I draw the line when its shoved in my face in a completely false manner ("its not a choice") and then I'm lectured or insulted or ostracized for speaking out against it. I'm not accusing you, but its very common now, when SJW lose their minds because someone isn't using the trendy and approved LGBT lobbying newspeak (or whatever else).
In what way is it shoved in your face?
IF gay people do sometimes make themselves more obvious (gay pride marches?), maybe that's a response to prejudice (active prejudice, I don't mean your attitude), and if they had been simply accepted (in my sense above) such demonstrations might not be necessary?
When you speak of "speaking out against it" do you mean against the claim that "it's not a choice"? I don't know why anyone would feel it necessary to claim that, it's a factual question, let the geneticists sort it out.
In the end I really don't see why whether it is genetic or chosen should make the slightest difference to attitudes to gay people, who just live their own way (or chosen way) without much affecting others.
I'm not saying this applies to you, but maybe it's an effect of the habit of some strains of Christianity to focus moralising on sexual activity more than on other areas of life, even when it is simply private.
 
Jul 2016
8,941
USA
OK, I understand you're not talking about any sort of banning or attacking.
But can't acceptance mean something less positive than 'embracing' or 'welcoming', just not taking any particular interest. Lots of people no doubt do things that don't attract or interest me, I don't feel I have to positively embrace or welcome them, or particularly like what they do, just accept it's none of my business and I don't need to have any particular point of view at all.
The famous Mrs Patrick Campbell approach I suppose, "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do, so long as they don't do it on the street and frighten the horses?"
But it is now about embracing. Either I am wholeheartedly on board, or I'm a racist nazi homophobe, who is probably secretly gay (which is the favorite narrative of anyone who might not be completely on board a cultural lifestyle based on sex).

In what way is it shoved in your face?
IF gay people do sometimes make themselves more obvious (gay pride marches?), maybe that's a response to prejudice (active prejudice, I don't mean your attitude), and if they had been simply accepted (in my sense above) such demonstrations might not be necessary?
When you speak of "speaking out against it" do you mean against the claim that "it's not a choice"? I don't know why anyone would feel it necessary to claim that, it's a factual question, let the geneticists sort it out.
In the end I really don't see why whether it is genetic or chosen should make the slightest difference to attitudes to gay people, who just live their own way (or chosen way) without much affecting others.
I'm not saying this applies to you, but maybe it's an effect of the habit of some strains of Christianity to focus moralising on sexual activity more than on other areas of life, even when it is simply private.
Its shoved into my face because LBGT represent something like 3-5% of the populace. When you look at media and how its everywhere, does that look like only 3-5%? The way they're indoctrinating children, the way they are using lies to perpetrate their lifestyle (Its not a choice!). I'm just tired of it all. Shut up! You have sex with other people of your same sex? So what?

More so, the ridiculous identity politics associated with it is what I truly hate. "Its not a choice" is a lie. History proves it. There have been numerous societies throughout the world, throughout history, that have practiced wholesale same sex coupling as the social norm. I don't mean 3-5% of the population, I mean nearly all men. I mean where if you aren't diddling kids, you're the outcast. That isn't just the past, its the present. There are numerous cultures through the planet in 2019 that aren't part of western civilization that everyone here in Historum is familiar with, where same sex coupling or other similar activities (same sex pedophilia) are practiced by individuals who absolutely believe they are not homosexuals.

"Its not a choice" hedges completely on some biological/hormonal factor being the cause. Then explain those other peoples. What hormonal problems did the Ancient Greeks have? Explain what hormonal causes explain the Pashtun obsession with Dancing Boys. Explain why many African American men who regularly have sex with other Black men refuse to identify as Gay, believing themselves straight men who just like having sex with other men.

Modern geneticists trying to prove "Its not a choice" aren't interested in that. They aren't trying to find the truth, they're trying to prove a lobbying talking point. Its completely tied up with grants in a very disturbing manner, which is one of the biggest problems with modern science as a whole, grants. Any lab trying to prove "its not a choice" is true is guaranteed years of top funding, which pays the salaries of scientists, lab assistants, interns, and schooling for grad students, etc. That is how those people get paid. There is almost zero money in proving the talking point is a lie. Who is funding that? The religious aren't, they just go by scripture. And yet there is all the money and fame to be made attempting to find some sort of link to prove its true.

This thread is the perfect example as to why its asinine to trust the scientists. Its the same with Climate Change, no scientist who cares about their job prospects and future would ever dare attempt to disprove the popular political narrative, its career suicide. But trying to prove the narrative is correct means funding and fame. It doesn't just mean guarantee publishing in notable journals (which is the hallmark of research), it means being able to afford the boat house on the lake, with the nice boat, putting kids through private school instead of public school, the trophy wife can afford the boob job, and everyone gets to go to southern France for summer vacation. That is what proving a political narrative means. Want to know what disproving it means? It means being fired . It means being ostracized by the community. It means being black listed by the community. It means no beach house, no boob job, no summer vacations, because no salary and no job. Because they committed a sin, they denounced the scripture, they are blasphemers who spoke out against the True Word.

Because all this crap is now religion.
 

Similar History Discussions