Being gay is a choice comments causes backlash

[Throckmorton]

Everything in life is a choice.

So you could choose to be attracted to men? You know that means you're gay/bisexual right?

 

[Patranus]

I'll make sure to tell that to my friend's sister who has Down's Syndrome that she chose that.

So you are saying that being gay is a genetic defect?

 

[zsdersw]

So you are saying that being gay is a genetic defect?

Try not to be stupid. It's difficult for you, I know... but make the effort.

 

[Patranus]

Try not to be stupid. It's difficult for you, I know... but make the effort.

Exactly.

There is a big difference between genetic defects and genetic traits that make people predisposed to certain actions.

Just because someone is genetically predisposed to a certain action doesn't mean that acting on those predispositions aren't a choice.

There is a genetic trait that makes someone predisposed to alcoholism yet millions of people with this trait make the choose to not act on them.

 

[Texashiker]

What's your point?

She may have been married to a man and had 2 children, but I know many lesbians and gay men who came from heterosexual relationships. The attraction toward the same gender was always there, just suppressed to fulfill some other temporary desire/need.

I think you are missing the point of the OP.

Gay rights groups want everyone else to show tolerance.

But when it comes time for gay rights groups to show tolerance, they refuse to do so.

The "I was born this way" argument is the result of dealing with homophobic bigots. If homosexuality is not evil and must be punished why would it matter if it is a matter of choice or not.

This is not about being gay, its about tolerance and respect.

 

[woolfe9999]

I think the basic orientation is biological, but because most people have some degree of ambiguity in their biological orientation, meaning it isn't 100% one way or the other, that a degree of choice can then enter into it.

My observation, anecdotal though it may be, is that "choice" might more often be a factor for women than for men. In many cases it seems like a woman may have had bad experiences with abusive men in relationships and then chooses to be with women, though the choice is as much or more a relationship choice than a sexual one. I've heard from women living in lesbian relationships who have said that sex is equal or hotter with men but that they can't stand being in a relationship with men.

It seems that for men the stigma of being in a homosexual relationship is stronger and hence the choice to do so is usually not made, meaning those who lead homosexual lifestyles are more likely to have a strong biological predisposition toward it.

 

[zsdersw]

Exactly.

There is a big difference between genetic defects and genetic traits that make people predisposed to certain actions.

Just because someone is genetically predisposed to a certain action doesn't mean that acting on those predispositions aren't a choice.

There is a genetic trait that makes someone predisposed to alcoholism yet millions of people with this trait make the choose to not act on them.

You said everything is a choice. Attraction is not a choice.

 

[zsdersw]

I think you are missing the point of the OP.

Gay rights groups want everyone else to show tolerance.

But when it comes time for gay rights groups to show tolerance, they refuse to do so.

They called Nixon's statement "irresponsible and flippant". That's not a lack of tolerance, it's a mild criticism of the statement.

 

[Texashiker]

That's not a lack of tolerance, it's a criticism of the statement.

I am going to tolerate of your position, but on the other hand I am going to criticize your comments.

How does that even work out?

If we were talking about hate groups, how long would that fly?

 

[woolfe9999]

I am going to tolerate of your position, but on the other hand I am going to criticize your comments.

How does that even work out?

If we were talking about hate groups, how long would that fly?

There is a difference between not tolerating who someone is and being critical of someone's opinions. Hate groups aren't critical of the opinions of gays. They are intolerant of people being gay, period. You seem to think that opposing bigotry means you can't be critical of peoples' opinions.

Your analogy is a fail.

 

[woolfe9999]

You said everything is a choice. Attraction is not a choice.

In saying "being gay" was a choice, Nixon was obviously conflating her choice to be with women with the basic question of orientation/attraction. She clearly meant the former but gay activists are concerned that her statement could be construed as the latter. That I suspect is the real problem here.

 

[Texashiker]

There is a difference between not tolerating who someone is and being critical of someone's opinions. Hate groups aren't critical of the opinions of gays. They are intolerant of people being gay, period.

Intolerance and criticism go hand-in-hand.

If you were respectful of someones opinion, there would be no need to criticize them.

Two people can disagree without criticism. But that is not the case with the pro-gay group that called the lady "irresponsible".

 

[woolfe9999]

Intolerance and criticism go hand-in-hand.

If you were respectful of someones opinion, there would be no need to criticize them.

Two people can disagree without criticism. But that is not the case with the pro-gay group that called the lady "irresponsible".

You basically ignored the thrust of what I said and are making a specious semantic argument. You can refer to criticism as intolerance all you want, but criticizing an opinion, no matter how harshly, isn't the same thing as not tolerating who the person is. Before replying again, please formulate a response that addresses the point squarely.

 

[Fausto]

You basically ignored the thrust of what I said and are making a specious semantic argument. You can refer to criticism as intolerance all you want, but criticizing an opinion, no matter how harshly, isn't the same thing as not tolerating who the person is. Before replying again, please formulate a response that addresses the point squarely.

Good luck with that.

 

[PokerGuy]

Tolerance in the mind of liberals means "tolerance for all things we agree with. Intolerance for everything else".

Nixon is 100% right. What you are attracted to is not a choice, how you act on that attraction is a choice.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Exactly.

There is a big difference between genetic defects and genetic traits that make people predisposed to certain actions.

Just because someone is genetically predisposed to a certain action doesn't mean that acting on those predispositions aren't a choice.

There is a genetic trait that makes someone predisposed to alcoholism yet millions of people with this trait make the choose to not act on them.

Any honest, reformed alcoholic will tell you they are still an alcoholic even if they haven't had a drink in years. Not acting on a predisposition doesn't change what they are naturally predisposed to be.

Besides that, comparing alcoholism, a potentially self-destructive behaviour that can also be a danger to society, to being gay is really reaching. Personal sexual preference within legal bounds is really nobody elses concern but that of the individual. Busybodies who believe they should dictate to others what specific sexual preference others should choose would be better served looking inward instead of outward because clearly they have issues of their own.

 

[dank69]

Tolerance in the mind of liberals means "tolerance for all things we agree with. Intolerance for everything else".

Nixon is 100% right. What you are attracted to is not a choice, how you act on that attraction is a choice.

Is that like how small government in the mind of conservatives means "small government when it comes to morals we disagree with, large government for everything else"?

 

[Texashiker]

Before replying again, please formulate a response that addresses the point squarely.

I think pokerguy sums it up nicely.

Tolerance in the mind of liberals means "tolerance for all things we agree with. Intolerance for everything else".

Gay rights groups - we demand everyone tolerate us and stop with the criticism.

Gay woman - being gay is a choice, at least for me.

Gay rights groups - shut your mouth, what you are saying is irresponsible.

Gay rights groups not only want to be treated equally, but they do not want to be criticized. But its ok for those groups to criticize others?

 

[woolfe9999]

I think pokerguy sums it up nicely.

No, Pokerguy engages the same exact fallacy as you. Criticizing the opinions of others is not being a bigot. Sorry, but conservatives are way off the reservation with this claim that opposing bigotry means you can't criticize other people. It's a transparent fallacy of false analogy. I'm not saying liberals can't be bigots, but this isn't an example of it.

 

[Texashiker]

No, Pokerguy engages the same exact fallacy as you. Criticizing the opinions of others is not being a bigot. Sorry, but conservatives are way off the reservation with this claim that opposing bigotry means you can't criticize other people. It's a transparent fallacy of false analogy. I'm not saying liberals can't be bigots, but this isn't an example of it.

Your comments are irresponsible.

 

[dank69]

Your comments are irresponsible.

Less than half a page before you get owned to the point of babbling. You are slipping.

 

[woolfe9999]

Your comments are irresponsible.

You still aren't answering the point I've made.

 

[Atreus21]

I think what's really stupid is the notion that tolerance is some sort of virtue.

 

[woolfe9999]

I think what's really stupid is the notion that tolerance is some sort of virtue.

Depends what you mean by "tolerance." If you mean tolerance of people's race, creed, national origin or sexuality, then I think yes, tolerance is a virtue. If you mean tolerating every opinion out there, no matter how wrong headed, foolish, or offensive, then no. Same thing goes for conduct, particularly conduct that directly affects/harms others.

 

[Atreus21]

Depends what you mean by "tolerance." If you mean tolerance of people's race, creed, national origin or sexuality, then I think yes, tolerance is a virtue. If you mean tolerating every opinion out there, no matter how wrong headed, foolish, or offensive, then no. Same thing goes for conduct, particularly conduct that directly affects/harms others.

I think it's been politically hijacked, like the word racist or socialist. It's used way too often and inappropriately, not to mention lazily. People are on the lookout for the slightest pretext to lob the accusation, as if it excuses them of sorting through their opponent's argument.

What happens when common sense conflicts with tolerance? A good example is racial profiling in airports. We have to assume that an old lady of any nationality is as likely to be a terrorist as a young middle-eastern man. We all know the truth, but are willingly pretending not to know any better. It seems we're more interested in being "tolerant" than in actually rooting out terrorists.

Oh, boy. I'm gonna get it for this.