A question for both sides of the spectrum on the "gay debate"

[TheWildCard]

So I have a question for both sides of this debate.

For those who believe it is a choice are you not in a way confessing that people have homosexual feelings and that it is 'normal" just as long as you do not act on it?

For those who believe that it is not a choice are you not saying that homosexuals are abnormal and have some kind of "mental disability", thus making it some what legiable to try to "cure"? 

Please note I'm not saying that I believe either of these I'm just trying to spark debate by being highly critical of both sides.

[John Dibble]

For those who believe that it is not a choice are you not saying that homosexuals are abnormal and have some kind of "mental disability", thus making it some what legiable to try to "cure"? 

I don't think it's a disability, as I don't think it disables them in any real sense. It's an abnormality, though, but I don't think there's any real reason to try to cure it.

[Gabu]

For those who believe that it is not a choice are you not saying that homosexuals are abnormal and have some kind of "mental disability", thus making it some what legiable to try to "cure"? 

Homosexuality is abnormal, in the sense that the majority of people are not homosexual, but then again, so is red hair, going by that definition.  I view it a lot like red hair, really: it is what it is, and you can dye it or bleach it all you want, but you're still going to have red hair underneath it all.  Furthermore, just like red hair, it doesn't hurt you to have it any more than it hurts blondes or brunettes to have their color of hair, so I don't really see what there is to "cure".

The only pain that comes from homosexuality is the pain caused by other people, and it's hardly arguable that the solution to that should be to make homosexuals go away.

[Bono]

I dont udnerstnad how people can get all worked up over this. Personally, this is one of my cold button issues.

[Trilobyte]

For those who believe that it is not a choice are you not saying that homosexuals are abnormal and have some kind of "mental disability", thus making it some what legiable to try to "cure"? 

No, and I don't see how there could be such an implication. In many ways it's like being left-handed. It's not a disability, but life is tougher as a leftie because we live in a society dominated by right-handed people. And believe it or not, there are still parents out there who want to "cure" their kids' left-handedness.

[TheWildCard]

For those who believe that it is not a choice are you not saying that homosexuals are abnormal and have some kind of "mental disability", thus making it some what legiable to try to "cure"? 

No, and I don't see how there could be such an implication. In many ways it's like being left-handed. It's not a disability, but life is tougher as a leftie because we live in a society dominated by right-handed people. And believe it or not, there are still parents out there who want to "cure" their kids' left-handedness.

Basically where one would get the disability argument is the fact that they cannot naturally breed. Which is different from being left handed and having red hair.

Please also note I'm just arguing for arguings sake I do not believe one or the other.

[Gabu]

Basically where one would get the disability argument is the fact that they cannot naturally breed. Which is different from being left handed and having red hair.

Please also note I'm just arguing for arguings sake I do not believe one or the other.

Hey, if a gay person wants to attempt to cure himself or herself, it's a free country; go for it.  I don't think you'll exactly find many who want to, however, and if the person doesn't want to, I don't see why anyone should tell that person otherwise.

[A18]

It's a very unfortuante condition. Disability? Well, maybe. The fact that I can't lift up my car and throw it in the back yard is a disability, though not a terribly troubling one.

I prefer disorder.

[ragnar]

For those who believe that it is not a choice are you not saying that homosexuals are abnormal and have some kind of "mental disability", thus making it some what legiable to try to "cure"? 

I don't think it's a disability, as I don't think it disables them in any real sense. It's an abnormality, though, but I don't think there's any real reason to try to cure it.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It's not a choice, that's obvious.  And if if it was, how is it immoral to act on it? 

Personally, my theory on homosexuality is simple.  We all have both male and female hormones in our bodies on some level.  I think gays might just have too much of the hormone from the opposite sex.  That's not something that can be cured, it's just like having a birthmark, or being naturally intellectual, it's just who you are.  No one should ever have to feel guilty for being gay.  Unfortunately, we have the Church to do that to people, like they're pissing off God by being gay, and letting everybody down.  It's all absurd. 

[opebo]

To quote a Thai 'friend' of mine - "A hole is a hole". 

[Erc]

Basically where one would get the disability argument is the fact that they cannot naturally breed. Which is different from being left handed and having red hair.

Please also note I'm just arguing for arguings sake I do not believe one or the other.

Hey, if a gay person wants to attempt to cure himself or herself, it's a free country; go for it.  I don't think you'll exactly find many who want to, however, and if the person doesn't want to, I don't see why anyone should tell that person otherwise.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

There are plenty of anorexics who don't want to be "cured," but yet surely you'd acknowledge theres something wrong with them?

[Jake]

It's not a choice, that's obvious.  And if if it was, how is it immoral to act on it? 

Personally, my theory on homosexuality is simple.  We all have both male and female hormones in our bodies on some level.  I think gays might just have too much of the hormone from the opposite sex.  That's not something that can be cured, it's just like having a birthmark, or being naturally intellectual, it's just who you are.  No one should ever have to feel guilty for being gay.  Unfortunately, we have the Church to do that to people, like they're pissing off God by being gay, and letting everybody down.  It's all absurd. 

How is it obvious. If it was obvious, wouldn't there be proof backing up that it was "obvious".

[Alcon]

Basically where one would get the disability argument is the fact that they cannot naturally breed. Which is different from being left handed and having red hair.

Please also note I'm just arguing for arguings sake I do not believe one or the other.

Hey, if a gay person wants to attempt to cure himself or herself, it's a free country; go for it.  I don't think you'll exactly find many who want to, however, and if the person doesn't want to, I don't see why anyone should tell that person otherwise.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

There are plenty of anorexics who don't want to be "cured," but yet surely you'd acknowledge theres something wrong with them?

The difference, in my eyes, is that one is a life-endangering disease and one is a sexual orientation that does not endanger one's life by its very presence.

[bgwah]

Homosexuality is not a choice. No one would choose to be hated like that, that's common sense.

And yes, I believe there is a good possibilty that there will eventually be a medical cure to homosexuality.

[??????????]

It's not a choice, that's obvious.  And if if it was, how is it immoral to act on it? 

Personally, my theory on homosexuality is simple.  We all have both male and female hormones in our bodies on some level.  I think gays might just have too much of the hormone from the opposite sex.  That's not something that can be cured, it's just like having a birthmark, or being naturally intellectual, it's just who you are.  No one should ever have to feel guilty for being gay.  Unfortunately, we have the Church to do that to people, like they're pissing off God by being gay, and letting everybody down.  It's all absurd. 

If its hormones they can easily be regulated and lowered or raised. Hormone therapy is rather common actually.

[angus]

So I have a question for both sides of this debate.

For those who believe it is a choice are you not in a way confessing that people have homosexual feelings and that it is 'normal" just as long as you do not act on it?

For those who believe that it is not a choice are you not saying that homosexuals are abnormal and have some kind of "mental disability", thus making it some what legiable to try to "cure"? 

Please note I'm not saying that I believe either of these I'm just trying to spark debate by being highly critical of both sides.

I'm really quite certain I didn't choose to be straight, or to be attracted in many instances to nonwhite chicks, or even to have a general preference for smart chicks.  So, by extension, I assume you are attacted to men, brunettes, blondes, skinny chicks, fat chicks, whatever, by some compulsion buried deep either in your genetic makeup, or deep in your childhood experiences.  Again, it's just an assumption, but I really don't think dykes and queers are so by choice.  Now, beyond that, you seem to suggest that this postulate leads to labelling as a "mental disability" the preferences.  I disagree.  I have thoroughly enjoyed blondes as well.  I simply have a preference for darker-complexioned women.  So, you cannot say I have some "disability" in the form of being disabled to be attracted to blue-eyed, yellow-haired, pink-skinned chicks who could pass for my sister.  Then, by extension, I would argue that the homosexual desire is not a disability either.  I have posted before that I know of gay men who are divorced (mostly because they were under tremendous familial pressure to be "normal" and married out of Fraternal Love for a woman they thought they could stand to be with) and who were "able" to pleasure their heterosexual wives till they decided to come out of the closet.  So I say NO it is not tantamount to a "disability"  We don't have to call it a "preference" if that is an offensive term (and I can see how it might be) but certainly we should not introduce additional inaccuracy by calling it a "disability"

[migrendel]

I would say that it is natural in the sense that the desire for same-sex intimacy occurs without a conscious effort to feel such desire, but I think we can all choose with whom we have sex. Such desire might be abnormal from a statistical perspective, but being unusual and being bad are different things.

I am concerned most by those gay people who are trying to make us as heterosexual as possible in order to be palatable to whomever still gets creeped out by us. Such ingratiating tactics are just as harmful to the community as those who despise our existence, and I would argue that we can never achieve our rights if we must lie about ourselves in order to do so. Let the self-loathing flagellate themselves, but if we accept our true personae, even if they involve lisping, limp wrists, and lace jabots, we will achieve more through self-respect than any law pushing "civil unions" or what have you ever would.

Hormonal treatment of homosexuality was common in the 1940s and 1950s. It did not "cure" people, but caused them to become chemically unbalanced.

[Hatman 🍁]

This *should* end the argument about choice: Why would anyone *choose* to be gay?

However, I know those people who believe it is a choice will come up with some zany answer to refute this.  In fact, the way I see it is, if you think it possible, than you must be at least bisexual, because only a non-straight person would think this. Straight people are not attracted to other members of the sex, and would never try it, because it would be to repulsive. Thusly, they must understand that if other people are willing to try it, - then it can't be a choice issue, now can it?

[angus]

I think we can supplant the phrase "preference" with the more neutral phrase "orientation" if the former offends.  Still, it's bullsh**t to say that it's a "disabilty" in the same sense that having eyeglasses, hearing aid, ADD, schizophrenia, or a wheelchair represents a disability.  Not that people with disabilities can't lead productive lives.  My wife is blind as a bat without her glasses, so she can't scuba dive, for example, but she can drive a car and get a PhD in Chemistry and earn a paycheck and cook my meals and sweep the floors.  On the other hand, I've had great times scuba diving with totally flaming flamboyant You-Go-Girl hellaQueers and they seem to have no problem discriminating between Sharks and Dolphins.  Now, a queer with glasses is another story.  Ouch.  That's gotta suck.

[TheresNoMoney]

It's definitely a trait they're born with. No on chooses to be gay. Pretty ridiculous argument in my opinion.

I didn't choose to be straight, I was born that way.

[angus]

I'll disclose that I'm okay with them keeping you out of the Army on account of poor eyesight, by the way. 

[Richard]

This *should* end the argument about choice: Why would anyone *choose* to be gay?

However, I know those people who believe it is a choice will come up with some zany answer to refute this.  In fact, the way I see it is, if you think it possible, than you must be at least bisexual, because only a non-straight person would think this. Straight people are not attracted to other members of the sex, and would never try it, because it would be to repulsive. Thusly, they must understand that if other people are willing to try it, - then it can't be a choice issue, now can it?

Bullsh**t.  The Greeks were then all bisexual.  It doesn't work that way.  You're taught to like it or not, and it is a decision.  And a fun one at that.

[??????????]

It's definitely a trait they're born with. No on chooses to be gay. Pretty ridiculous argument in my opinion.

I didn't choose to be straight, I was born that way.

I am willing to concede that the vast majority don't 'choose' to be gay. But certainly they are gay for a reason and it's likely to be some sort of genetic defect, chemical disorder, hormone imbalance or a mixture of all of the above and in some cases, child molestation.

[A18]

I agree with States. Homosexuality is best understood as a disorder.