BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

The-Driver92:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't support homosexuals, but I can watch Brokeback Mountain over and over again. I really can."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ratracer:

"What's that supposed to mean? You could just as well say that you don't support green-eyed or red-haired people. No matter if it's because of some chemical imbalance in their brain or some hormonal imbalance of the mother during pregnancy, they are born this way and can't change that. They can only suppress it. Suppressing things doesn't help anybody. If society demands them to do that, they could just as well demand of all red-haired people to dye their hair. It's nonsense."



ratracer, unless I'm greatly mistaken, that post was meant to be a joke.


And while I think your tolerant attitude is commendable and I wish more people felt that everyone should be accepted for who they are, I also think that statements about hormonal or chemical imbalances might make people feel that same sex orientation is being categorized as a 'defect' of some sort. I'm sure that's not the way you intended it. But some people will jump on anything to stir things up so we should all use our words carefully. Gender preference orientation is "normal" and "natural" in everyone, whatever that preference might be. And as such, I totally agree with you that no one should be restricted in any way because of certain aspects of who they are as a person.

[deleted]

Actually guasco-2, you missed the point of my post entirely and managed to contradict yourself at the same time. And ironically there are some small points that we agree on but it seems that has gotten by you as well.

You say that my post “only promotes subjectivity.” And you mention the chemical imbalance issue again which I have never used in any of my arguments. You further state that testimonies are not reliable (we’ll get back to that one) but then say that we should listen to the testimonies of your three friends, just not those of the millions of other people who have had different experiences. That’s pretty hypocritical. But let’s talk about those testimonies. You compare a gay person saying that his/her orientation is a natural instinct and not a choice to someone claiming to have seen Bigfoot or aliens. But a person might think they saw something that looked like Bigfoot when it really wasn’t. And the same with aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. A person knows how he/she feels and knows if his/her orientation is a choice or a natural part of who he/she is. So again, the only way to refute such testimonies is to call those people liars.

You also said:

“You can't say testimonies are 100% true unless you accept every humans word about everything.”

But I never said that testimonies are 100% true. I said that it would be irresponsible to ignore the testimony of millions of people on a subject like this one. And again, why should we accept the testimony of your friends and not that of everyone else? Here’s the part that might surprise you. While I have my doubts about the process by which those friends might have come to discover their orientation (or choose it), I still have to accept that without irrefutable proof to the contrary it’s possible that for them it was a choice. But logic says that just because a small number of people experience their sexuality that way, you cannot dismiss the relevance of the experience that millions of other people have had.

The fact that you base the foundation of your position on the premise that “Everyone tries(to a degree) to lie to themselves to make themselves happy” as your basis for claiming that LGBT people don’t know their own orientation and how it functions within them shows that you’d rather draw conclusions from your own feelings than from the vast information at hand. That’s not terribly objective.

So to summarize, I said that we should listen to everybody’s testimony, even your friends’. And that while it’s possible that their experience is one of choice that doesn’t change the fact that for millions of others it is not. You said that personal testimony is unreliable but that we should accept that of your three friends and not that of the millions of other people offering their insight.

Next, you state as a fact that orientation is a choice. I said that the preponderance of the evidence does not support that. I did not make a unilateral statement of fact. It is my personal belief that orientation is rarely a choice and I base that on my study of the evidence recorded to date and my own friends’ testimonies. It would be silly of me to state that there is never an exception to that experience, just as it is silly of you to state that it is always a choice.

I don’t think it will be difficult for people to see who is being objective here and who is not.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion you had as to the meaning of my prior post. Clearly we see this matter from different perspectives. I'm just glad I was able to clarify my position.