Some Musings About Sexual Orientation and Stuff

I couldn't care less what some one's sexual urges are focused upon as long as they require consenting adults, and not innocents, unwilling or otherwise.

Maybe Gayness is a genetic trait or maybe not.

Who cares?

Well, actually the "Gay Rights Movement" cares very much.

Because they want to inject in popular culture that homosexuality is far more prevalent and therebye more normal than you or I might think.

By all measure, homosexuality represent no more than 10% of our population.

Big Deal?

Only because the Left and their Hollywood sponsers insist so.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Does injustice have to affect a majority of people before it's a big deal?

The very fact of someone being gay is not a big deal, no, nor it should be.

However, people being fired because they're gay; being denied housing because they're gay; not being able to marry because they're gay; all the way to being beat up and killed because they're gay... that's a big deal.

And since those injustices still occur, I think it's worth having a movement to address those injustices. Thanks to this movement and people speaking up, a whole lot of progress has been made in a short time. More progress needs to be made.

And when the movement was in its early stages, the fact that gayness is innate was extremely important for making the case against injustice.

As for Cynthia Nixon, I absolutely believe it was a choice for her, whether she's a 3 on the Kinsey Scale (bisexual, equally gay and straight) or whether she moved from a 1 to a 5 (for example).

I also believe that many people are born a 0 (just plain straight) or a 6 (just plain gay) and stay that way, and choice just does not come into it.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Thank you, Soz for making the point that human and civil rights are not a matter we can leave to the tyranny of the majority.

The fact that a majority of states have voted down gay marriage when it has been put to referendum shouldn't be any persuasion for us to shrug off LGBT rights as some fool notion of air-headed liberals, any more than it should have in the 60's, when most people were resisting civil rights for blacks.

Anyone promoting the notion that gay marriage and discrimination because of sexual orientation is just a big issue because of "the left and their Hollywood sponsors" is as wrongheaded and lost as the bigoted fools who blamed the civil rights movement of the 60's on "librul agitators".

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

they want to inject in popular culture that homosexuality is far more prevalent and therebye more normal than you or I might think.

what does prevalence have to do with normalcy? or with human rights?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

By all measure, homosexuality represent no more than 10% of our population.

By all measures, Blacks represent no more than 12% of the American population.

Finn wrote:

Big Deal?

You tell me. Were Jim-Crow laws a big deal?

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

so why would a man want to watch 2 women kissing over a man and a woman, or, a man and a man?

radio god ron bennington was musing the other day that the sexual activities that disgust men the most, kissing men and sucking cock (thank god it's an XL channel) are exactly what they expect women to do

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

The north is not perfecto, indeed. I think homophobia is alive and healthy in all geographic regions.

0 Replies

[For anyone following the discussion - this post is a response to a post of Finn's in another thread. I brought it back here, because this is the thread where the particular discussion started]

Finn,

Desperate to be cool?
Damn, you’re a lost fool. You wouldn’t know cool if it crawled up your homophobic arm and bit you on your racist head.

Here’s someone trying to appear cool:

Finn wrote:

Quote:

My response was clear (albeit not to my detractors)...Who cares?

You care, evidently, or else you wouldn’t post these overlong, sophistic barfs of nonsense explaining why your “detractors” are all reflexive idiots and you are wise and circumspect.

Quote:

The mere fact that you feel compelled to answer this question in a manner that is not truthful (so as to not afford "leeway" to the "oppressors") indicates how politicized a question it is for you.
You have your self-expressed doubts though. Does that make you an "oppressor?"

See, you 1950’s throwback, it is not just a politicized question to me, it is a highly politicized question for the entire country right now.
The fact that you somehow see yourself as exempt from the controversy just because you say so is further evidence of your complete, Romney-like disconnect to all things human and real.

You’re just an uptight, insecure white guy finding it harder every day to find a group to point at and make “other”; and it’s freaking you out so badly that you don’t even notice that all you do nowadays is bitch.

Don’t worry, jackass – the republic will survive even when your boys have gay teachers and your relatives marry big black men.

Quote:

No, snood can muse where lesser mortals fear to tread because he's one of the cadre; his bonafides are unquestionable.
I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect that it some cases its genetic and in others its choice, but the bottom line is I don't care, and other than as a biological puzzle I don't know why anyone who isn't thoroughly devoted to the politicization of the Gay experience would.

Here, again, you highlight your complete cluelessness: Gayness and sexual orientation isn’t politicized because some “cadre” here on A2K or some fringe group wants it to be. It is something whose time has simply come, and your rhetorical acrobatics notwithstanding, we all have to accept the societal change. What politicizes it is jackasses like you who (denying your motivation all the way) resist the inevitable.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that the question is truly only important because its answer somehow marks the answerer as tolerant or homophobic. Genetics is the politically correct answer because it serves the Gay Rights movement's desire to depict homosexuality as "normal."

You snarkily put the word ‘normal’ in quotes when referring to genetic gayness, and you refer to the movement’s “desire to depict” homosexuality that way, but you just can’t figure out why snood and your other big bad A2K “detractors” see you as a hopeless bigot. Good luck with that.

Quote:

Hollywood is disproportionately supportive of the Gay Rights Movement. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but being who they are they can't resist pushing their opinions on the rest of the country via popular cultural. As a result, we have a disproportionate number of gay characters appearing in TV shows and movies, to the point where despite the fact that a Gay/Lesbian group puts the percentage of homosexuals at between 5% and 8%, the American people when polled answer it is around 25%.

Where the hell are you pulling these “facts” from? They smell bad, so I have a guess…

Quote:

The Gay Rights Movement strives to manipulate the American people. I understand why they do and if it works, good on them, but I'm going to call manipulation when I see it.

You go right on, Columbo – no, they can’t fool you.

Quote:

You on the other hand, swallow it hook, line and sinker because you are desperate to be cool, and being a liberal is cool.

I’m really sorry for whatever it is that happened that damaged you so. Did you lose a prom date to a popular kid senior year?

Quote:

You're cool snood so you get to muse on whether not homosexuality is hereditary while I, pointing out the question is immaterial except in the context of politics am a rabid racist.

No. You’re not a rabid racist because you point out that the question of whether homosexuality is genetic or not is immaterial. Since that line of reasoning is a way to dodge talking about gayness, and since I think you resist talking about it because of some deep insecurity, I’d say that makes you more of a homophobe than a racist. You have a whole other distinct set of fucked up characteristics that make you a racist.

Quote:

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not complaining about fairness. I'm simply trying to point out what a shallow, hypocritical tool you are.

Got it. And in your world, you’re a profound thinker with the courage of your convictions.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

You wouldn’t know cool if it crawled up your homophobic arm and bit you on your racist head.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

Folks like me can't be cool since I don't think like you.

Quote:

Here’s someone trying to appear cool:

Finn wrote:

Quote:
My response was clear (albeit not to my detractors)...Who cares?

This makes no sense. How can you even recognize an attempt on my part to be cool if I have absolutely no idea of what being cool is all about?

My response was clear. I don't care about the question you yourself mused about. That's trying to be cool?

Apparently, somewhere in your definition of "cool," the notion of not caring fits the bill.

Quote:

You care, evidently, or else you wouldn’t post ...

And you have the nerve to classify my comments as sophistry?

You, obviously, still can't grasp that my post wasn't about what I cared about but how ridiculous it is that so many people do care.

Quote:

See, you 1950’s throwback, it is not just a politicized question to me, it is a highly politicized question for the entire country right now.
The fact that you somehow see yourself as exempt from the controversy just because you say so is further evidence of your complete, Romney-like disconnect to all things human and real.

What was so horrible about the 50's?

The question of whether or not homosexuality is heridtary is hardly highly politicized for the entire country. Same sex marriage may be, but not the question that is in question. That you insist on conflating any and all issue regarding homosexuality as vitally important is only proof of how politically minded you view the topic.

Most Americans couldn't care less why homosexuals are homosexual. That question only matters to biologists and the zealots on both sides of the coin.

Whether or not I am exempt from the question is dependent upon whether or not you consider answering it to be compulsary...which apparently you do (even if you have to be slyfully untruthful). I'm afraid that I just don't recognize the requirement to line up for either choice or genetics, but that's probably because of my rabid racism.

And with this bon mot from snood we can see the future: Romney is inhuman. This from the Obama supporter who insists on those who disagree with him that they acknowledge what he believes are Obama's virtues. Anything else would be purely partisan don't you know.

You know less about Romney than you do about me and you consistently prove yourself wrong about me.

Quote:

You’re just an uptight, insecure white guy finding it harder every day to find a group to point at and make “other”; and it’s freaking you out so badly that you don’t even notice that all you do nowadays is bitch.

Whoa, sounds racist to me snood. I thought you were above such things.

I am uptight though because I own a company that employs a fair number of individuals who rely on me to keep their tables laden with food to feed their families, and there are so many assholes like you that want to make it tougher for me to do so because of your childish/selfish notion of "fairness."

My insecurity, on the other hand, is quite minimal because I really don't care what people (other than my family and friends) think about me and I am financially quite well off. You, by contrast, exude insecurity as evidenced by your A2K icon and your desperate desire to be perceived as cool.

Quote:

Don’t worry, jackass – the republic will survive even when your boys have gay teachers and your relatives marry big black men.

My boys are too old to have teachers and more than one of my relatives have married blacks men and women (interesting that you limited it to black men). I also have relative and friend who are proud gays, and guess what...I don't care one way or the other. I love them or dislike them for who they really are, not for the their badges of coolness.

In fact I have a lesbian cousin who I couldn't love more and who is more conservative than me. She despises Obama. Self-loathing in your eyes I suppose.

Quote:

Gayness and sexual orientation isn’t politicized because some “cadre” here on A2K or some fringe group wants it to be.

There you go again tilting at straw men.

The comments I made which so enraged you were limited to the question of whether homosexuality is due to choice or genes. The lines you quoted say exactly that and yet you insist on expanding them to address a larger issue which you somehow fuels your argument that I am a homophobe.

You could not be more intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

but you just can’t figure out why snood and your other big bad A2K “detractors” see you as a hopeless bigot

On the contrary. I know full well why you and the others see me as a bigot.

You need to.

You need to find "bigots" like me, even when you have to twist reality to do so, so that you can feel good about yourselves. The great irony with Liberals is that even though you declare so loudly that it is always about others (the poor and down-trodden in particular) it really is all about them. You are enlightened, you are are compassionate, you are, ultimately, cool.

Quote:

No. You’re not a rabid racist because you point out that the question of whether homosexuality is genetic or not is immaterial. Since that line of reasoning is a way to dodge talking about gayness, and since I think you resist talking about it because of some deep insecurity, I’d say that makes you more of a homophobe than a racist. You have a whole other distinct set of fucked up characteristics that make you a racist.

No you fool, that line of reasoning is just what it appears to be, and indifference on the question of whether homosexuality if choice or genetic.

I've particpated in numerous threads on "gayness" and so it can hardly be said that I dodging the subject.

What can be said is that on the subject I am not in lock step agreement with you and therefore, by your nonsensical estimation, I am a bigot.

You really are the perfect Liberal ass snood.

Here's what I think about "gayness:"

Obviously I don't care whether it is by choice or genes.

Gay people are not evil or damned by God.

There are very good Gay people and there are very bad Gay people.

People should not be discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation.

Marriage is between a man and a woman but if any of the 50 states decides it includes same sex unions, so be it.

All things being equal, children are better off in a heterosexual family setting. If there are kids that heterosexual couple are not inclined to adopt, they are much better off with homsosexual couples that in foster care.

Homosexuality is not normal. This is not a value judgment it is a simple truth. It doesn't mean that homosexuals should be treated as sub-humans but it does mean that they are a a sub-group of the normal. Attemps to depict them as normal are purely political.

The behavior of some homosexuals is depraved. The behavior of some heterosexuals is depraved as well. I condemn both.

If I like someone, I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. If I don't, then it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, although I freely admit I might resort to an entirely inexcusable epithet regarding their sexuality.

Now snoodly, please enlighten me as to how this is a clear indication of my homophobia.

And while you are at it please provide me with an explanation of why you have judged me to be a racist...other than the fact that you are black and I am white and we disagree so often.

Quote:

And in your world, you’re a profound thinker with the courage of your convictions.

As a mater of fact I am in mine and any other world, why you are a slave to the desire to be well received within the clan of your choosing, and not too bright to boot.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Okay...
Well, to sum up (by which I in no way intend to attempt to preclude your having the last word in this exchange of momentous import - heaven forbid):

I guess we're just gonna have to muddle by somehow without each others' fond consideration and good graces.

lol

0 Replies

In the spirit of "We can have different opinions but not different facts", I want to say that Finn was correct when he wrote about the big overestimation of gays in our society. I offer this, from The Atlantic online....

"One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian. ...

...In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). ...

...Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian. ..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/

Definitely something for me to think about, in the context of the politicization of LGBT issues.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.

sounds about right, roughly 3% of the US population watches Glee

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

snood wrote:
fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.

sounds about right, roughly 3% of the US population watches Glee

<snark!>

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Obviously I don't care whether it is by choice or genes. Gay people are not evil or damned by God. There are very good Gay people and there are very bad Gay people. People should not be discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation.

We agree on those points

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Marriage is between a man and a woman but if any of the 50 states decides it includes same sex unions, so be it.

Here I differentiate between religious marriage and civil marriage. Religions can do what they want. They can sanction or fail to sanction unions for whatever reasons they feel are valid. Civil marriage is a completely different matter. Civil marriage is a legal contract between two people granting significant legal privledges and responsibilities. It does not make sense that the ability to enter into this legal union can be restricted by the government based on completely arbitrary considerations like skin color or gender. I believe if the government feels it needs to restrict access to marriage, it must be a restriction that applies uniformly and one in which the government has an interest on behalf of the public. Age is a good example. When restricting citizen rights is religiously driven I think we have a significant problem.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

All things being equal, children are better off in a heterosexual family setting. If there are kids that heterosexual couple are not inclined to adopt, they are much better off with homsosexual couples that in foster care.

I respect that opinion but I don't think it is supported by any data. It is hard to get to the "all thinks being equal" part but I think two adults in a strong, loving relationship make a good environment for raising children and that is what the data tends to support. I strongly agree that children are better off in a loving home than in foster care.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Homosexuality is not normal. This is not a value judgment it is a simple truth. It doesn't mean that homosexuals should be treated as sub-humans but it does mean that they are a a sub-group of the normal. Attemps to depict them as normal are purely political.

It really depends on how you define normal. Is left handedness (10% of the population) normal? Red hair (1-2%)? Being a lawyer (0.4% of the population)? I would say those are not common but not abnormal. Does "not abnormal" mean "normal"? To me someone being born with purple hair is abnormal, someone being born with red hair is within normal. There are more homosexuals than red heads or lawyers (combined).

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The behavior of some homosexuals is depraved. The behavior of some heterosexuals is depraved as well. I condemn both.

I suppose the key word here is "depraved". What happens behind closed doors between consenting adults is not my concern. I find few instances of public depravity so it really doesn't come up when I talk about homosexuality the same way it doesn't come up when I talk about sports.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If I like someone, I couldn't care less about their sexual orientation. If I don't, then it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, although I freely admit I might resort to an entirely inexcusable epithet regarding their sexuality.

That we have come to realize that those epithets are inexcusable is progress for all of us because we all grew up hearing them and on occasion using them.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

As respects marriage:

I'm a conservative. I think that an institution that has proven vital to human society should not be fiddled with after thousands of years of success.

Having said that, the institution has been degraded to such an extent over the last few decades that it this last salvo is not that momentous.

In fact, I predict that the vehemence of gays towards being allowed to join in a marriage recognized by the State will we be very short lived.

Once they are "allowed" to marry, very many of them will very quickly fall into line with the, unfortunately, prevalent thinking that the institution is outdated and fairly frivilous.

Soon after gays can marry anywhere, the gay divorce rate will resemble that of heterosexuals.

There is a forbidden fruit aspect to this issue that I don't think can be denied.

For those gay couples who truly see the institution of marriage as an important means to solidify their loving committment to one another, I've no fundamental problem, at all, with their goal. In fact, I actually honor it.

Perhaps I'm cynical but I just don't believe that this issue is being driven by the people I've described above.

At the risk of having my rabid racism confirmed, I liken this issue to one I came into contact with when I moved to the South: Busing.

Obviously there are people of good faith who truly believed that busing was an answer, if not the answer to the imbalance between blacks and whites in our society. However, having participated in many a public meeting on the issue I can tell you that I encountered no few number of black parents whose support of busing was was freely admitted to be primarily based on their desire to stick it to Whitey.

This really isn't a denigration of blacks, since whites are perfectly capable, and very often demonstrate, the same sort of stupid thinking.

It's cogent to this discussion because it represents another example of people taking positions based on politics and base emotions, and not necessarily reason.

If you insist on a certain action or outcome simply because you want to feel that you have won or to frustrate the people who you deem to be your opponents, I'm going to strongly suggest that you have not or cannot comprehend the full scope of an issue.

Clearly, this is not the motivation behind all support of gay marriages or busing, but it is prevalent enough to be worthy of consideration and calls to question the sanctimony of the most vocal advocates of either.

As for the issue of normalcy, there is an inherent belief that normalcy is superior to abnormalcy. In some cases this is true, but in others it is clearly not, and in many it is entirely immaterial.

I've not made a value judgment concerning normalcy, I merely point out that a group that represents less than 10% of the population cannot be considered normal.I

It only matters of course if you subscribe to the erroneous notion that abnormalcy is always bad.

Nevertheless, there is a political motivation to the obvious attempt to classify homosexuality as normal, and far too often, that motivation permits blantant propoganda and manipulation.

Folks who consider abnormal to be synonomous with defective or, worse, immoral, don't get any respect from me, but at the same time I have a similar lack of use for those who try to indoctrinate our children and the weaker minded among us to believe that what is clearly abnormal is normal. Manipulating the truth for political reasons isn't something I appreciate.

Again, these issues should be decided State by State and not by the Federal Government. No matter how strongly anyone feels about these issues there will be people who just as strongly subscribe to an opposite view.

When the Fed issue an edict, one group is quite happy while the other is not. For the unhappy group there is no feasible recourse.

I'm not minimizing the difficulty of moving from one state to another, but it is a viable option for people living in a state that doesn't subscirbe to their beliefs.

If the issue is important enough to you, you will endure the difficulties.

The often expressed notion that we can have it all and never be expected to sacrifice for our principle is, in my opinion, ridiculous, self-absorbed, and debasing.

2 Replies

Homosexuality is not unnatural, most of us are born with our sexuality already defined but babies aren't naturally born to hate, hate is taught, learned, infused, influenced, indoctrinated, brainwashed and is about the most unnatural element taught through bigotry and discrimination and its culprit? The bible! the sole reason we have so much hate through history, slavery, killing, oppressing women, targeting gays, yet people cling to it like its the greatest self help book. People will always try and glorify it but it remains tainted by its history and that can never ever be changed no matter how much you sugar coat it by the birth of christ.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I'm a conservative. I think that an institution that has proven vital to human society should not be fiddled with after thousands of years of success.

I guess as a conservative, you want to ignore actual history of marriage and how it is often been fiddled with for your made up version.

Quote:

Soon after gays can marry anywhere, the gay divorce rate will resemble that of heterosexuals.

You oppose gay marriage because it means equality of divorce? I guess you are a bigot that is opposed to equality on all levels.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I've not made a value judgment concerning normalcy, I merely point out that a group that represents less than 10% of the population cannot be considered normal.I

Wow!!!

Every person is part of a group that makes up less than 10% of the population. So according to your flawed reasoning, no one is normal. But being a far right conservative which makes up less than 10% of the population, you would have to agree that you are abnormal, I suppose.

2 Replies

@JeffreyEqualityNewma,

Parts of the Bible are impossible to believe, but if read, parts of it make a lot of sense. Its like any history book, it is a writen version of verbal history and is just about as accurate as modern history.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

I've not made a value judgment concerning normalcy, I merely point out that a group that represents less than 10% of the population cannot be considered normal.I

Wow!!!

Every person is part of a group that makes up less than 10% of the population. So according to your flawed reasoning, no one is normal. But being a far right conservative which makes up less than 10% of the population, you would have to agree that you are abnormal, I suppose.

Nicely put

0 Replies

Some Musings About Sexual Orientation and Stuff

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know