?

Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

"Opinions are like kittens: always giving them away"

Chelsea gets me hooked on music.

That is her job.



I have to wonder if it has occured to those who argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and that if homosexual marriage is legalized, it will lead to 'the breakdown of the family,' that they are essentially arguing that being gay is so much better than being straight that, if there are not enormous social and political sanctions in place to keep people straight, the straights will be deserting staid heterosexuality for queersville in society-destroying numbers.

Of course, I've seen Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. I know this is true.

Comments

In the UK somebody once put it, sometime post the 1967 Act: 'They used to hang men for homosexuality; then they only put them in prison for life; then they reduced the sentence to two years; then they made it legal; I'm leaving the country before it becomes compulsory'. One version of this 'slippery slope' theory.

It ought to be surprising that gender/sex essentialists have such a sense of the fraility of the qualities they believe to be innate and 'natural'. But it's far from a new phenomenon: hear me riff on the cries about what would happen if you educate women/give them the vote, from men, and women, who clearly believed in the natural subordinate role of the female and her inborn desire to marry and have babies.

Having to care about fashion would be a far stronger deterrent for me than having to put penises in my mouth.
you just won the quote of the century award, AFAIC
You are my hero.
The nature/nurture argument over homosexuality (or bisexuality, or whatever...) puzzles me. I see how it's used to argue all the different points, but I just don't see why it matters. I don't believe that sexuality is a choice for everyone. I do believe that acts are choices (in the same way that it was my choice to drink this hot chocolate).

So hey. Let's grant that some people are making this "lifestyle choice."

...so what?

That's the part that I don't get.
Well, because if it's a 'choice,' you can 'get better.' See? And not be a scary gay person and make the conservatives so uncomfortable.

I personally am amused of the research that shows that homophobia is directly linked to a homoerotic response. In other words, the most virulent homophobes are the ones who find members of their same gender sexy.

For straight people who are comfortable in their sexuality, it's not an issue.

Methinks the lady, and all that.
Well, because if it's a 'choice,' you can 'get better.' See? And not be a scary gay person and make the conservatives so uncomfortable.

Yeah, I see. It's just that the whole thing rests on the idea that it's somehow worse to be gay if you're choosing it than if you came that way (at least to some of these folks). V. puzzling to me. Live and let live, do what you want, and if I don't care what someone does with another consenting adult because of their natural inclination, why should I care when they do the same thing just for kicks?

'Course, I may be disqualified from understanding because I don't care in either case. But I've encountered people who don't care in the first case, do in the second, and I'm just not convinced in follows.
It, not in. Oy.
I don't get why it matters whether you're born with it or if it's a choice.

After all, most people are born into a religion; people choose religion -- often the one they're born into, but sometimes something different.
Regardless, we protect people from discrimination on basis of religion.

Following the logic of "lifestyle choice", we don't need to protect Jews/Muslims/Catholics/Pagans from discrimination, because they can always choose to be Christian...
You can have the little lavender house next door to mine.

Rose bushes or lilacs?
I would like a wisteria-colored house.

Ours is mint green stucco, which isn't as bad as it sounds.
Hey, that makes my family even more appealing, since it's sometimes given as the bottom of the slippery slope! Go us!

It's a good thing to remember when doing an N-body family holiday problem....
The trouble with most political arguments is that, carried out to their logical conclusions, they contradict themselves.

Do you think the neighborhood of lavender houses could admit the occasional sunny yellow cottage? I'd pick my roses to match.
You know, I think the whole argument against gay marriage is based on a fallacy. It's not about protecting "marriage", its about the fact that if gay marriage is okay, then being gay must be okay. To recognize gay marriages is a tacit endorsement of homosexuality in some people's eyes.

And he, I likes 'em both, so I'm set.
::cracks up:: It's true, it's true.

These people just don't think before they open their mouths.

::has an In and Out moment::

"Oh, my god, he taught me all year. *I* must be gay!"





(Anonymous)

The people who say it is a choice are saying they have chosen to act heterosexual, despite their attraction to the same sex. They know they have made a choice and expect everyone has the same options.

-- Brian
http://www.shadowfoot.com/blog/footprints.html
If being gay were a lifestyle choice and there was no stigma attached, I suspect there would be quite a lot more people choosing it. It was not unusual to see two women or a couple of 'confirmed bachelors' living together in the past and most people thought nothing of it, or if they did, did not breach good manners and comment. These days, two women or men cannot live together without people pointing the finger and commenting. Whether they are actually in a sexual relationship or not, people assume they are.
Americans are very weird and impractical about sex.

This has been commented on before. *g*