I'm not going to make any pretenses about it: I am a man who thinks homosexuality is wrong and I don't like homosexuals. Your continued assertion that it is not a choice is, fundamentally, devoid of a reasonable level of evidence. However, how do you defend yourself in light of the following? There are homos who will state something to the following effect: "If I could take a pill that would make me heterosexual, I wouldn't take it!" In other words, even if science could give you the option to change, you would still choose homosexuality! Since this seems to be the prevailing view of all homosexuals, why would I possibly be wrong to hate and despise the likes of you?
Curious To Know
My response after the jump...
I'm going to set aside the whole you-choo-choo-choosing-not-to-take-an-imaginary-pill-that-would-change-your-sexual-orientation-proves-that-you-chose-your-sexual-orientation-in-the-first-place brain teaser, CTK, and skip to your question: why is it wrong to hate and despise gay people?
Gee, let me see.
We're not hurting anyone, for starters. Your hatred isn't going to convince gay men to give up dick, convince lesbians to give up pussy, or convince bisexual to give up the sample platter. And it's not going to convince any of us to take pills that 1. don't exist and 2. wouldn't tempt us if they did. And finally, CTK, you're gonna hurt your brainz if you keep coming up with synapse-strainers like that magic-pill-that-turns-you-straight-and-wins-me-the-argument conundrum.
I'll let my readers come up with other reasons why you shouldn't hate and despise us. But don't delude yourself: your hatred doesn't concern us that much. You can stomp your feet and hate us soooooooo hard and we're going to go right on being queer.
And here's a whole book full of reasonable evidence that sexual orientation is not a choice.
6
7
8
10
14
17
21
24
25
28
32
34
38
40
Your continued assertion that it is not a choice is, fundamentally, devoid of a reasonable level of evidence.
There are homos who will state something to the following effect: "If I could take a pill that would make me heterosexual, I wouldn't take it!" In other words, even if science could give you the option to change, you would still choose homosexuality!
Since this seems to be the prevailing view of all homosexuals, why would I possibly be wrong to hate and despise the likes of you?
41
"There are negroes who will state something to the following effect: "If I could take a pill that would make me white, I wouldn't take it!" In other words, even if science could give you the option to change, you would still choose blackness! Since this seems to be the prevailing view of all negroes, why would I possibly be wrong to hate and despise the likes of you?"
43
45
49
50
51
55
Your continued assertion that it is not a choice is, fundamentally, devoid of a reasonable level of evidence.This is the kind of letter that makes me want to hit my head against a cement wall.
57
58
59
62
64
67
71
72
That's true. However, a frighteningly large number of gay men approach the inherent risks of sexuality with suicidal recklessness. Straight people do the same thing, but not with nearly the same frequency.It seems pretty clear to me that this has less to do with homosexuality vs. heterosexuality than with culturally (and perhaps biologically, though I hesitate to assert as much) ingrained differences between the way men and women approach sex. This seems well borne out by the lower STD rates among lesbians.
76
94
98
103
104
107
109
110
113
114
I refuse to justify my existence.A fabulous reason for ALL of us to ignore the increasingly violent emissions of SB.
117
119
120
Is it possible that millions of years evolution have molded men and women to compliment one another, you know like a yin and yang type deal? Maybe the high risk behavior that many gay men engage in is the result of male sexuality freed from the calming influence of women?As a matter of opinion--that is, granting that I not a scientist of any stripe--this posit strikes me as unlikely; evolution does not "mold". It is not a goal-oriented process; it's a loose description of what transpires, not a fixed prescription for how we should behave. Does there appear to be a balancing effect between the the anything-goes pursuit of appetite practiced by (many, possibly most) young men and the more apprehensive, nuanced approach to sex practiced by (many, possibly most) women of the same age? Maybe; that seemed to be my experience during my very, very brief tenure as a young, single, het-leaning bisexual man. Of course, it's not just the choosier aspects of female sexuality that keep heterosexual men from settling in; after all, a straight man who's sexually hungry enough can always chase down the exceptions among women. We also have a traditional option of marriage, which comes with enough benefits of its own that, for some of us, "free agency" can seem less appealing by comparison. Until pretty recently, there was no comparable norm in the gay community to which to defer.
If unsafe sex practices are equally common among heterosexuals and gay men, why is it that gay men have such a high rate of HIV infection?A few reasons. While unsafe sex practices as a percentage of all sexual activity are likely comparable in gay, heterosexual, and bisexual populations, gay men, as you and I seem more or less willing to agree, simply have more sex, probably because of the surplus of inflaming testosterone and absence of leavening estrogen in the mix. Perhaps more importantly, because the virus was originally introduced, in the U.S., via the gay population, the trajectory of spread could be reasonably expected to remain within those bounds; indeed, to expect otherwise is to suggest that a plurality of homosexuals live otherwise heterosexual lifestyles when not specifically (and, by implication, periodically) engaged in homosexual activity. Near as I can tell, this only bears out among the deeply closeted.
124
127
129
I doubt that is so.Your doubt doesn't even amount to an assertion; I cannot argue against it because it is not an argument.
Homosexual desire might occur at identical rates from culture to culture. However I suspect those desires are gratified w/ a bit less regularity in places where getting caught w/ a dick in your mouth gets you stoned to death or beheaded or whatever.As a percentage of all sexual activity, homosexual activity (i.e., gratification of homosexual desire) occurs at comparable rates in relation to heterosexual activity. Now, it's plausible that there may be less (reported) sexual activity overall in places where it can get you beheaded, since such cultures tend to be similarly conservative about all sexuality. But proscription of homosexuality, even if it takes capital form, does not appear to make either fewer homosexuals or less homosexual activity as a percentage of all sexual activity. Which suggests both that the "molding" done by evolution already includes a fairly immutable provision for a certain portion of the population to be sexually responsive in a way that is non-procreative and resistant to social engineering AND that allowing those whose proclivities of that type are not, in any way, harmful to non-participants (or even to participants, if undertaken responsibly) to participate in social institutions as equal partners does not appear to increase incidence.
139
Your telling me that there is reliable scientific data regarding the prevalence of homosexuality in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia?From what I can tell, all understanding we have of sexual behavior relies, in some measure, on self-reporting. Which makes it suspect, of course. It seems to me, though, that in all likelihood, actual levels of homosexual activity in violent theocracies would exceed what's reported; I'm not sure how you would successfully argue otherwise.
Comments (146) RSS