You have it back to front. It is the notion that sexuality is a choice that irritates the LGBT community.
Results 1 to 20 of 46
Sexual orientation - the progressive view
Comrades!
What's the view of socialists on the matter of sexual orientation? Obviously, all forms of discrimination must cease; that much is clear. But I hear some people say sexuality is genetically determined, but this view angers the LGBT community, because for them it is a matter of choice.
What's the stand of the progressives regarding this matter - is it genetics or simply a matter of preference?
You have it back to front. It is the notion that sexuality is a choice that irritates the LGBT community.
Although this brings up a problem - if we do determine that it is a genetic disposition, isn't it possible that some people (most likely religious folk) will advocate 'gene therapy" for homosexuals so they can become "normal?" Or if not that, then just the idea that it can be "cured" is problematic.
It's a fairly fringe concern but I thought I'd bring it up.
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
Thanks for the input, both of you. There's one thing that puzzles me. I know a guy who used to be sexually attracted to men even before he hit adolescence. But as an adult, he seems to be a heterosexual and has no interest at all in men.
This confuses me, and I don't know what to make of it. If it is genetics, was the earlier attraction just a mistake and nothing more? Or, if we admit that his preferences changed, does that mean orientation isn't genetically determined?
Human sexuality is fluid, nothing is set in stone. Besides virtually everyone is bisexual to some extant. How one's sexuality is expressed depends on many factors; social conditioning, the family system, genetics, and ultimately the material conditions of one's society.
The brain is our biggest sex organ. Its not genetics or environment but a very complicated mixture of the two.Its not uncommon for people to switch orientation at some stage of their life.
In the 80s a researcher claimed to have discovered a "gay gene". The research methodology was believed to be seriously flawed. LGBT activists used this to justify homosexuality, "we can't help it, its in our genes".This arguement is dangerous, its the flip side of the Nazis argument. If a trait can be shown to have a "genetic" cause, well, ultimately it can be "cured".
People should control their sexuality, not society. What, how, and why people get their rocks off to shouldn't matter, as long as it does not hurt other people.
To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget
Arundhati Roy
Lenina Rosenweg is a glorious beacon of light
Sometimes it take a while for some people to fully understand their own sexuality.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Its a scientific matter, not one that should be based on your political views, science is science.
I always thought this was the wrong decision by the LGBT community. For one, it hinges it's ideas on an as of yet unprovable concept. For two, it begins to suggest a determinism about human nature that while I may agree with in principle doesn't suffice for public perception. For three, it completely changes the justification from letting a person be free to letting a person be justified within the paradigm - the paradigm that a revolutionary by its very nature must struggle against.
Sexual orientation isn't a choice because one doesn't choose one's attractions in the same way one chooses, say, ice cream flavours.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
That's way too narrow of a perspective.
Sexuality is beyond a "scientific matter"; if it was only a scientific matter, there would be no cultural variations on sexuality.
[FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode]"The strategic adversary is fascism ... the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us."
[/FONT][FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode]-Foucault[/FONT]
[FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode]"[/FONT]God damnit.[FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode] Just be wonderful. What's wrong with you people?!'[/FONT][FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode]"[/FONT]-[FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode]Bilan[/FONT]
If I am genetically encoded to be attracted to the same sex, then it is "set in stone". Maybe I could have sex with a woman, but I have never in my life had sexual feelings about a woman. Romantic (non-sexual) feelings, as a child, but only because I was conditioned to believe I was heterosexual. Puberty set in, my real sexuality emerged.
This "we are all bisexual" opinion denies the existence of homosexuality as a real sexual orientation, and so it is not only inaccurate, it is offensive. I am not bisexual.
LGBT activists do not "justify" homosexuality. We treat it as it is: something that does not need to be "justified", but is natural and acceptable. Your paranoia is unbecoming. There is no evidence that homosexuality can be cured, even if homophobic scientists plotted to cure it. Racist scientists could also do the same thing (change black genes to white genes), this does not keep anybody from stating the fact that skin color is determined by genes. The real reason that gay activists want recognition of the fact that their sexuality is not a choice, is not caused by their environmental or family upbringing (the canard that homosexuals exist because of single parenting, or child molestation, or homosexual themes in our society). The only logical conclusion is that sexuality is determined by genetic factors. Or some kind of biological process in the womb, similar to how gender is formed in fetuses (although sexual orientation is a different topic from gender identity).
It matters to me when people think I chose to be gay. I didn't even know what being gay really meant. There were no gays in my life, around me, I was 11 years old, nobody I knew at school or anywhere else was gay.
You are right that they would hate us regardless of whether they accepted it was genetic, because we would still be different. But the reason gay activists say, "We were born gay" is not for acceptance, just to clear up what is a FACT we personally know firsthand. Denying the genetics of sexual orientation to an exclusively gay man or woman, is like telling a black person they weren't born black.
No matter if it is a choice or genetically predetermined they should have the right to have same-sex relationships. The idea that it hangs on being genetically predetermined is like saying that it would be "right" to try to convert them or to discriminate them if it was "merely" a choice.
Exactly. Those who cling to the theory are setting themselves backward.
However, I see a certain set of the community that was persecuted and afraid for a long time needing to cling to a coping mechanism (such as: not a choice to be gay, even if that's true) and maintain political survival. However, it seems like the movement should advance forward from that coping mechanism into something more powerful.
Actually, I have met gay people who think that it is a choice, so I'm not sure the opinion is as unanimous as you imply here. Obviously it shouldn't matter - the point is that the state has no business getting involved in the sexual affairs of consenting adults regardless.
Anyway fwiw, I tend to agree with Lenina Rosenwald that sexuality is fluid. I don't know if someone has already made this point, but it also seems that sexuality is something which exists on a spectrum rather than some sort of rigid binary. I consider myself to be heterosexual, though I have been attracted to women before (though it is much less common). I imagine if the expectation were that I find women rather than men attractive, assuming I felt like conforming to that expectation, I might be able to switch. I also know heterosexuals who find the thought of having sexual relationships with the same sex to be really repulsive. And there are homosexuals who find the thought of having sexual relationships with the opposite sex to be really repulsive. There are - as I've already indicated - people who could swing either way but tend to have a preference one way or the other, and then there are people who could go either way and don't have a preference at all. It is obviously not a rigid binary. And if sexual preference is genetically predetermined, then it certainly seems to come in a lot of flavors lol
Last edited by 9; 25th June 2010 at 04:02.
The libertarian-conservative view says that sexual orientation is a matter of "choice" or "free will", and thus the question devolves to "do what you want, but keep it out of my face", along with optional corollary of "...and don't mess with my idea of marriage." The social-conservative view intersects with this but calls it wickedness or sickness and advocates for various authoritarian "solutions". The socially-liberal view advocates for tolerance by lumping it into a sort of multicultural basket of ostensibly immutable characteristics like skin or sex. This is based on questionable science, since no conclusive evidence for a gay gene has been discovered yet. The radical view has been expressed precisely by Dimentio above, and which is informed by the Marxist position that ideas about the family and the way people should pair up is socially determined and changes over time. As such there is nothing sacred about this or that type, and making people conform to one in particular is oppressive.
I think it's unfortunate, however, perhaps not entirely surprising, that so many (But, by no means all.) in the homosexual community are resistant to accepting that their orientation is biologically determined. (As is transsexualism , I would say.) The only alternative is that it's a choice, or a mental disorder, which is exactly what the bigots preach. Moreover, it's the only logical conclusion, and while not completely understood, is really the only conclusion supported by the evidence.
[FONT=Verdana]Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13[/FONT]
"Kick over the wall 'cause government's to fall,
How can you refuse it?,
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power,
D'you know that you can use it?"-The Clash, "Clampdown"
Its not though, in heavily Islamic countries, or countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, homosexuality is still around and not that much less so.
Its a scientific matter.
People are obsessed over the difference between cultural factors and genetic factors. Personally I don't think these two can be separated.
In my country there has been a near upheaval over this, where "popular" natural scientists started debunking sociologists and other human-scientists on grounds of being unscientific and just basically ideologically founded. The natural scientists were largely backed by the conservative/reactionary portion of the population.
One thing I find strange is that many people, when discussing sexual orientation, in one moment argues in favor of it being "genetically determined" and in the next it being a "social norm", altering their views to fit their argument. I don't think sexual orientation is any of these things.
It doesn't deny the orientation, it says that the identity as connected to sexuality is constructed.
IMO, homosexual and heterosexual acts has been around as long as people have. What is a recent development is a distinction between "homo/hetero" sexuality. I view sexuality in this way because it explains how at different times homosexuality or heterosexuality have been more or less widespread. In Greek times, men who married women also often had many homosexual relationships. In Rome, part of mentor-ship was sexual relationships between men. Genetics or in-born sexuality can not explain why homosexual relationships have been common and expected in some societies while strictly forbidden in other societies. Even location within societies changes the types of relationships - armies, prisons, all boys or all girls and other same-sex situations have always seen higher instances of homosexual relationships than the general society (when that society is hostile towards homosexuality).
As a distinct medical category, homosexuality has only existed since the Victorian era. As a distinct community in society, it has only existed probably since industrialization and urbanization.
Regardless of weather someone believes sexuality is in-born/genetic or, as I do, a preference (conscious or not) this is the view I think we should all take. Genetic or not, there should be no repression or restrictions.
This is also why I reject the genetic origin of sexuality. If you say "it can't be cured" and then some born-again says he was "cured" then it just becomes on person's word against the bigot's words. If we take the stance that it is a preference and fluid, it makes a much stronger argument in favor of liberation and the brainwashing attempts of bigots can be shown to basically be badgering repression into someone.
And if it wasn't, then anti-LGBT attitudes would be justified in your view?
The right wing wants to have this argument just as they want to make the argument over abortion about the point at which life starts. I think we need to avoid such ideological traps and say that it doesn't matter, the important thing is that there should be no sexual repression for anyone engaged in loving, consensual acts.
You are comparring behaviors and physical characteristics and that's apples and oranges. It's also dangerous because it implies that a sexual preference may also include behavioral stereotypes or physical weakness or all sorts of other stereotypes and misconceptions.
Also many people live happy lives in a hetero relationship before then becoming attracted to someone of the same sex later in life. There are many people who had exclusively homosexual relationships, but then are thrown when they become attracted to someone of the opposite sex - they also often have to deal with feeling of betraying their identity.
So again, I favor the view that sexuality is fluid and that it should be liberated from all repression. One thing that I think will help win allies to the LGBT cause is reminding straight people that the bigots want to repress ALL sexuality. Their main target is LGBT people, but they also don't want straight black people to "put sexuality in their faces" they don't want heterosexual women to show any desire or sexuality, they don't want anyone to be having sex unless it is part of the nuclear family unit!
Can't some people be "hardwired" gay and some choose it as a lifestyle? Why does it have to be so complicated?
