Spin off: Gays, Blacks & Women

[Karma]

Taken from the Rant and Rave 3 three of the Moonlight Lounge:

Okay, why is it black people have such a problem with gay people? I have a problem with that when they suffered back in the fifties, sixties and seventies as well. They didn’t have certain liberties themselves.

It started when Shalandrea’s friend forwarded her pictures from Miami, FL. Apparently there were gay and lesbian people there. So the friend took pictures and e-mailed them to Shalandrea, whose black. A lot of the people who were in the pictures were black themselves.

But what pissed me off was what Shalandrea started to say by saying “There is a gay epidemic.” Excuse me? That’s so rude to say, where the hell does she get off? What about all the BLACK people?! Huh? Yeah, there’s an epidemic of them too. I’ve never said anything about black people like that. I’ve had black friends, I listen to a lot of hip-hop music and the like.

I find it really unnerving when a black woman is disrespecting the gay community. I think that’s hypocritical and unnecessary. I can’t respect people like that, that’s bullshit!

Maybe she doesn’t realize but humans evolve with time just like other animals in a kingdom. It happens whether they like it or not. ”

As someone who is VERY protective of her gay friends, I have had VERY frank discussions with black folks that that i am personally aquainted with [who have made statements about gay people that i objected to], some of whom are gay and some are not, and I too have noticed that within some parts of the black community that i've been involved with that there was this INFLATED disdain or comdemnation toward gay people. even some gay black men that i know will look down on OTHER gay men (of any color) for living their life OPENLY versus trying to be "D/L" or a poser. I TRULY dont get that.

I would ask that woman who said that how would SHE like it if someone made statements like that about black people...but then again, i HAVE countered some of my friends/aquaintences with that and they say things like "I dont have a choice about being black, they have a choice to be gay" which usually starts a WHOLE OTHER argument LOL!

From what i've heard in dialogue that i've had one thing that ALWAYS seems to come up is: the church, another thing especially with the men is "the masculinity factor" and the RESPECT they feel they will/won't get.

There are lots of factors at play with this. The subject even gives me pause to speak of, but here goes.

The church is one BIG thing about homosexuality and Black people. Another is the havoc that has been created by "down low" Black men. The lifestyle alone (down low) is instrumental in highly incrased STD rates, including AIDS, among heterosexuals.

The next is a real hostility to equating the plight of homosexuals with race. You will find that, to a person, African-Americans (myself included) find it insulting to equate or relate the two. The reasons are many, but here are a few.

1) You absolutely cannot help being Black, or White, or Asian. The biological components of homosexuality are questionable at best for many reasons that I will be happy to explain if anyone is truly interested.

2) There is not the history of enslavement, mass murder, discrimination, or dehumanization that comes with race. I am not saying it is a bed of roses, but when you grow up learning the fact that tens of millions of Africans died IN TRANSIT to the West, it pisses you off when homosexuals (or women, for that matter) try to relate because of job discrimination or denial of military service. It is not the same.

Lastly, there is a concern about sexual predation. In fact, this is a BIG concern in Black communities in part due to women's basketball and the furtive nature of "down low" lifestyles, which cause homosexual men to be more4 insistent in terms of figuring out who is who. This very issue (women's basketball and predation) was discussed by ESPN, for example, and many people of all colors have negative experiences with this situation. For every reasonable person I have met and got along with who was homosexual, I have met someone else who was sexually aggressive about their preferences. Now for me that is no big deal, I deal with people on an individual basis. But for others, BIG problem.

In the end the issue is complicated and some of it comes down to plain old prejudice, unfortunately. But some of the hostilities have roots.

Originally Posted By: Rampage;34629

There are lots of factors at play with this. The subject even gives me pause to speak of, but here goes.

The church is one BIG thing about homosexuality and Black people. Another is the havoc that has been created by "down low" Black men. The lifestyle alone (down low) is instrumental in highly incrased STD rates, including AIDS, among heterosexuals.

The next is a real hostility to equating the plight of homosexuals with race. You will find that, to a person, African-Americans (myself included) find it insulting to equate or relate the two. The reasons are many, but here are a few.

1) You absolutely cannot help being Black, or White, or Asian. The biological components of homosexuality are questionable at best for many reasons that I will be happy to explain if anyone is truly interested. ”

and that is EXACTLY what i'm talking about that usually will start a whole OTHER argument LOL! are you going to tell me that the american psychological association, among OTHER noted, accredited mental health professionals and experts, not to mention gay people themselves who have admitted to knowing they were "different" since ch ildhood that this is merely a CHOICE!?

2) There is not the history of enslavement, mass murder, discrimination, or dehumanization that comes with race. I am not saying it is a bed of roses, but when you grow up learning the fact that tens of millions of Africans died IN TRANSIT to the West, it pisses you off when homosexuals (or women, for that matter) try to relate because of job discrimination or denial of military service. It is not the same. ”

are you suggesting that WOMEN as a MINORITY GROUP have not endured n ightmares dating as far back as the medieval/dark ages in europe? (and that's only because HISTORY has documented it that we know THAT much) when it comes to injustice (and it being TOLERATED and ACCEPTED AS THE NORM for DECADES) , i think women CAN relate, and so can gays for that matter. Black people DON'T corner the market on "group persecution"...and really, WHY should ANYONE be RUSHING to claim that distintion? like its a badge of honor? Gay people have been singled out for violence, discrimination etc too...

“ Lastly, there is a concern about sexual predation. In fact, this is a BIG concern in Black communities in part due to women's basketball and the furtive nature of "down low" lifestyles, which cause homosexual men to be more4 insistent in terms of figuring out who is who. This very issue (women's basketball and predation) was discussed by ESPN, for example, and many people of all colors have negative experiences with this situation. For every reasonable person I have met and got along with who was homosexual, I have met someone else who was sexually aggressive about their preferences. Now for me that is no big deal, I deal with people on an individual basis. But for others, BIG problem. ”

women's basketball? garrick? are we from the same planet? i think ANOTHER THREAD in the ROUND TABLE is going to be opened VERY soon LOL!

I am aware of the fact that many psychological associations have decided that it is absolutely biological in nature. But there is still a stark lack of evidence. For example:

Every other indicator of gene and/or biologically directed traits can be traced and have a relation with parentage. That is NOT the case with homosexuality. So, the only way you could truly decide it was genetically determined with current evidence is if you decided it was mutation of some sort. because there is no evidence that it is passed by gene. The evidence you currently cite is anecdotal, and that cannot be considered scientific by its very nature, especially when you consider the cource and its possible motivations. Another blow against its genetic roots is the fact that gays do not reproduce. How exactly is the biological information passed if this is the case? Unless we are to believe that it is spontaneously generated or that MANY people carry the gene but manage not to express it outwardly, passing it to progeny. That eventuality would support it being about choice in some way as well.

I don't think it is "merely" a choice. I think that it is a combination of factors both nature and nurture. I am not prepared to accept it as a genetic certainty by any means, given the current information and the realities of how genes are passed from generation to generation.

And women HAVE tolerated nightmares in terms of injustice and mistreatment. But even women who were persecuted could OWN Blacks. BIG difference.

Were women murdered for looking at someone? NO. Hung for being literate? NO (in fact, women were often encouraged to uphold literacy and the arts, even if the reasons were condescending). Murdered in passage and packed in vessels as chattel? NO. You THINK you can relate, but when you get stopped ang frisked without cause for being a woman by the police, then speak with me about the plight being the same. Blacks were being murdered for HOPING to vote when women already had won suffrage.

And for the record, in women's basketball, there has been new issues concerning lesbians on the team and the nature of how to deal with it, from coaches hostile to gay athletes (bad) to coaches and players who have preyed upon young women who previously were straight (also bad). Sheryl Swoopes anyone?

 

[Firebird]

I'll just post my reply here. Garrick, I'll reply to your reply tomorrow. lol. I'm heading to bed.

I would ask that woman who said that how would SHE like it if someone made statements like that about black people...but then again, i HAVE countered some of my friends/aquaintences with that and they say things like "I dont have a choice about being black, they have a choice to be gay" which usually starts a WHOLE OTHER argument LOL!

Honestly, I was so disgusted that an African American would say such a remark. But to make matters she's a WOMAN! Not only did she have to deal with judgements and discrimmination for the color of her skin but the nature of her sex as well. Which is why I was so dumbfounded by such an ignorant remark.

You absolutely cannot help being Black, or White, or Asian. The biological components of homosexuality are questionable at best for many reasons that I will be happy to explain if anyone is truly interested.

I GET that its extremely difficult being any of those races. The fact that African Americans, Asians, etc. are judged just by the color of their skin. But to some degree you can look at a gay male whose feminine (a queen) and automatically KNOW he's gay. Whether its his high-pitched voice, the feminine mannerisms, or the type of clothing he wears. I'm not saying they are identical but they are similar. Not everyone can be identified by their sexual preference, some can be discreet about it.

There is not the history of enslavement, mass murder, discrimination, or dehumanization that comes with race. I am not saying it is a bed of roses, but when you grow up learning the fact that tens of millions of Africans died IN TRANSIT to the West, it pisses you off when homosexuals (or women, for that matter) try to relate because of job discrimination or denial of military service. It is not the same.

In many cultures, gay and lesbian people are frequently subject to prejudice and discrimination. Like many other minority groups that are the objects of prejudice, they are also subject to stereotyping. Gay men are seen as effeminate and fashionable, often identified with a lisp or a female-like tone and lilt. They are stereotyped as being promiscuous and unsuccessful in developing enduring romantic relationships[citation needed], despite research to the contrary. Gay men are also often alleged as having pedophiliac tendencies and more likely to commit child sexual abuse than the heterosexual male population, a view rejected by mainstream psychiatric groups and contradicted by research. Lesbians are seen as butch, and sometimes "man-haters" or radical feminists.

Homosexuality has at times been used as a scapegoat by governments facing problems. For example, during the early 14th century, accusations of homosexual behavior were instrumental in disbanding the Knights Templar under Philip IV of France, who profited greatly from confiscating the Templars' wealth. In the 20th century, Nazi Germany's persecution of homosexual people was based on the proposition that they posed a threat to "normal" masculinity as well as a risk of contamination to the "Aryan race".

In the 1950s, at the height of the Red Scare in the United States, hundreds of federal and state employees were fired because of their homosexuality in the so-called Lavender Scare. (Ironically, politicians opposed to the scare tactics of McCarthyism tried to discredit Senator Joseph McCarthy by hinting during a televised Congressional committee meeting that McCarthy's top aide, Roy Cohn, was homosexual, as he in fact was.)

A recent instance of scapegoating is the burning of 6,000 books of homoerotic poetry of 8th c. Persian-Arab poet Abu Nuwas by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture in January 2001, to placate Islamic fundamentalists.

In the United States, the FBI reported that 15.6% of hate crimes reported to police in 2004 were founded on perceived sexual orientation. 61% of these attacks were against gay men, 14% against lesbians, 2% against heterosexuals and 1% against bisexuals, while attacks against GLBT people at large made up 20%. Violence based on perceived gender identity was not recorded in the report.

In the United States, the FBI reported that for 2006, hate crimes against gays increased to 16%, from 14% in 2005, as percentages of total documented hate crimes across the US. The 2006 annual report, released on November 19, 2007, also said that hate crimes based on sexual orientation are the third most common type, behind race and religion.

Every other indicator of gene and/or biologically directed traits can be traced and have a relation with parentage. That is NOT the case with homosexuality. So, the only way you could truly decide it was genetically determined with current evidence is if you decided it was mutation of some sort. because there is no evidence that it is passed by gene. The evidence you currently cite is anecdotal, and that cannot be considered scientific by its very nature, especially when you consider the cource and its possible motivations. Another blow against its genetic roots is the fact that gays do not reproduce. How exactly is the biological information passed if this is the case? Unless we are to believe that it is spontaneously generated or that MANY people carry the gene but manage not to express it outwardly, passing it to progeny. That eventuality would support it being about choice in some way as well.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. There are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people. It also stated that for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age. To date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."

Research into how sexual orientation may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises fears about genetic profiling and prenatal testing.

 

[Arkaine]

I am aware of the fact that many psychological associations have decided that it is absolutely biological in nature. But there is still a stark lack of evidence. For example:

Every other indicator of gene and/or biologically directed traits can be traced and have a relation with parentage. That is NOT the case with homosexuality. So, the only way you could truly decide it was genetically determined with current evidence is if you decided it was mutation of some sort. because there is no evidence that it is passed by gene. The evidence you currently cite is anecdotal, and that cannot be considered scientific by its very nature, especially when you consider the cource and its possible motivations. Another blow against its genetic roots is the fact that gays do not reproduce. How exactly is the biological information passed if this is the case? Unless we are to believe that it is spontaneously generated or that MANY people carry the gene but manage not to express it outwardly, passing it to progeny. That eventuality would support it being about choice in some way as well.

While, I concur, as a gay man, that the idea that homosexuality is genetic is not either proven or disproven the term "choice" is offensive in nature due to the whole "Oh, well if you didn't want this bigottry, you shouldn't have chosen to be gay." Things, unfortunately, aren't that simple. Technically speaking, if you want to compare the whole idea of blacks and gays and the way they were treated: By nature we don't require a vote, in fact democracy goes well beyond the scope of our traditionally patriarchal society confines. Look at nature and you will see the strongest physically becomes a pack leader, not by others "voting" them in but by forcing their way in. Technically speaking, naturally we're hard-wired to accept facism much more than democracy. So, would it be fair to assume that black people "chose" to want to have the vote and thus "chose" to get the bigottry that came with that? The violence? The discrimination. Be very careful about what you classify as a "choice" in future because it's a very ambiguous term that makes people, more often than not, look like they're trying to justify their outlook by placing their blame upon the victim.

And women HAVE tolerated nightmares in terms of injustice and mistreatment. But even women who were persecuted could OWN Blacks. BIG difference.

Wealthy women could OWN blacks because they were ALLOWED to. It's true that white men considered women to be above black women but it was only this consideration that afforded them this.. they were still under the same leader. Think about that.

Were women murdered for looking at someone? NO.

1. Yes, yes they were. :nod:

Hung for being literate? NO (in fact, women were often encouraged to uphold literacy and the arts, even if the reasons were condescending)

2. Witchtrials, actually, were more likely to persecute EDUCATED women than not. Also, only wealthy women were encouraged to uphold literacy and, really, it does depend on the culture you're talking about because, quite frankly, women have been persecuted by a hell of a lot more cultures (including, shock, black sub-culture) than black people have.

Murdered in passage and packed in vessels as chattel? NO.

3. Again, yes.

You THINK you can relate, but when you get stopped ang frisked without cause for being a woman by the police, then speak with me about the plight being the same. Blacks were being murdered for HOPING to vote when women already had won suffrage.

And this is what it all boils down to, the victims complex. "Oh my god! People several generations before my own suffered because of their skin colour, that's changed but I must use it to justify my biggotted attitude." No, things don't work like that. I'm Irish, we also had a slight bit of oppression in our country, forcibly starved, murderered, raped, beaten.. basically you name it... don't think black people have the whole oppressed thing in their history down, personally I think Jews had it the worst, but ya know what? That doesn't matter because we're talking about here and now and I really never hope to have to live through politicians saying you're the devil's spawn, that you shouldn't be able to marry, picketing at funerals of those you care about, simply because of one minor indifference.

 

[Rampage]

“ Originally Posted By: Rampage

Were women murdered for looking at someone? NO. ”




1. Yes, yes they were.

No. No they weren't. Not simply for being women and using their eyes. NO. DEFINITELY not in appreciable or comparable numbers that would indicate more than induvidual cruelty rather than a system of oppression.

“ Originally Posted By: Rampage

Hung for being literate? NO (in fact, women were often encouraged to uphold literacy and the arts, even if the reasons were condescending) ”




2. Witchtrials, actually, were more likely to persecute EDUCATED women than not. Also, only wealthy women were encouraged to uphold literacy and, really, it does depend on the culture you're talking about because, quite frankly, women have been persecuted by a hell of a lot more cultures (including, shock, black sub-culture) than black people have.

Actually the Salem witch trial included women AND men. 16 women and 5 men were hung and one man was killed during torture. Additionally 5 other people died in imprisonment.

“ Originally Posted By: Rampage

Murdered in passage and packed in vessels as chattel? NO. ”




3. Again, yes.

NO. If so, find me the 30 to 100 million that died in the Middle Passage due to their gender. I'll wait.

This is getting us nowhere. Everyone has their tale of woe...

While, I concur, as a gay man, that the idea that homosexuality is genetic is not either proven or disproven the term "choice" is offensive in nature due to the whole "Oh, well if you didn't want this bigottry, you shouldn't have chosen to be gay." Things, unfortunately, aren't that simple. Technically speaking, if you want to compare the whole idea of blacks and gays and the way they were treated: By nature we don't require a vote, in fact democracy goes well beyond the scope of our traditionally patriarchal society confines. Look at nature and you will see the strongest physically becomes a pack leader, not by others "voting" them in but by forcing their way in. Technically speaking, naturally we're hard-wired to accept facism much more than democracy. So, would it be fair to assume that black people "chose" to want to have the vote and thus "chose" to get the bigottry that came with that? The violence? The discrimination. Be very careful about what you classify as a "choice" in future because it's a very ambiguous term that makes people, more often than not, look like they're trying to justify their outlook by placing their blame upon the victim.

I disagree strongly As a Black man, I know from sitting at the knee of those that came before me that we did CHOOSE to vote KNOWING that we were also choosing victimization by bigots who would kill us for trying. When I hear my wife's grandfather tell of how he stayed up all night armed because whites were calling, threatening his son and three daughters and his wife, I do KNOW that the CHOICE was made. Even now, I know people who vote in fear and iuncertainty, and I have helped at the polls for years to make sure that the elderly among us vote as they wish without interference. We did not say "we were just born this way". We said "we are here, and we will demand to be treated humanely".

You know what would be courageous to me? Not to say without scientific proof that you had no choice. Courage to me is to say "this is who I am, and I am not going away". To say that you had no choice is to take away the fact that whether it is a choice or not is IRRELEVANT. I am married, and anyone that wants that should be able to have that because they are HUMAN. I invite anyone to be as miserable as I am, LOL. Anyone who does my job deserves what I make if they live here, if they can do it as well as I can.

My point is that I am tired of people seeming to think that in order for me to care, they have to make their struggles the same as mine. No, our struggles are different and varied, but no less necessary. I appreciate your struggle as unique and worthy. Just stop trying to make it mine. It's irritating.

 

[Arkaine]

No. No they weren't. Not simply for being women and using their eyes. NO. DEFINITELY not in appreciable or comparable numbers that would indicate more than induvidual cruelty rather than a system of oppression.



Actually the Salem witch trial included women AND men. 16 women and 5 men were hung and one man was killed during torture. Additionally 5 other people died in imprisonment.



NO. If so, find me the 30 to 100 million that died in the Middle Passage due to their gender. I'll wait.

This is getting us nowhere. Everyone has their tale of woe...

Agreed, everyone does have their tale of woe and I suppose it is pointless to assume otherwise, I think we'd all be much less argumentative if everyone had suggested the same, rather than claim that the biggotry is more pointed towards them, due to whatever trait it is that others think they suffer from.

I disagree strongly As a Black man, I know from sitting at the knee of those that came before me that we did CHOOSE to vote KNOWING that we were also choosing victimization by bigots who would kill us for trying. When I hear my wife's grandfather tell of how he stayed up all night armed because whites were calling, threatening his son and three daughters and his wife, I do KNOW that the CHOICE was made. Even now, I know people who vote in fear and iuncertainty, and I have helped at the polls for years to make sure that the elderly among us vote as they wish without interference. We did not say "we were just born this way". We said "we are here, and we will demand to be treated humanely".

No you didn't choose humane treatment, in fact the inhumane treatment was chosen for you, what the black culture did was choose to fight that choice. That said, let's face it, was there really an option? The word "choice" factors in blame. If you did choose to fight that decision do you think it's right that the consequences were so harsh, and secondly do you believe that as a culture it excuses you from exacting the same consequences onto another sub-culture that you deem chose to fight the place where others have chosen for them? The thread is about the unacceptance of gays in black culture and you were defending it. What I don't necessarily see and what no one has yet been able to point out for me is that why a culture that, as a whole, is fully aware of the ignorance they received is so eager to turn around and readily accept the hostile nature that fuelled that ignorance and direct it toward another subculture.

So far you're defending the rights of those to feel that way, and that's fine, and I guess it's being dragged into "I've been more oppressed so suck it up!" territory but we still don't see WHY it has happened.

 

[Rampage]

More to the point, I have pointe dout my own annoyance at gays making their struggle the same one as African Americans.

In addition, I pointed to reasons for the hostility. To recap, one is the influence of the church in Black America. Another is the negative effect of the down low thing. Three is fear of sexual predation. Four is plain old ignorance.

I am not saying the prejudice is justified, I was answering the "why" question as honestly as I could.

 

[Arkaine]

But I can't really accept your points because:

1. If anyone, not just black people, accepted the church's belief's more and more then why oh why does it only really give them an excuse to hate others? For a religion that teaches acceptance and turning the other cheek it wouldn't appear that anyone is following it whatsoever when it comes to being a bigot.

2. If the "down low" was so difficult on black culture shouldn't they be celebrating out gayness? The fact that these people AREN'T doing the "down low" thing and are very much proud of their sexuality? Also would it not be more apt to say that "down low" is a symptom to the hostility rather than a cause of it? As without such hostility they'd have no need for down low?

3. Ignorance spans all cultures, why would it be more prevalent in black culture?

 

[Rampage]

It is NOT more prevalent in Black culture. If that were the case, gays would have little to fear as African-Americans are a relatively small part of the population and yet gays have much bigger issues than we could ever present.

I agree with you on the church thing although MANY religious people would tell you that their morality is about not accepting what is, in their eyes, wrong. It is unfair, but these people would try to equate homosexuality with addiction or pedophilia as things that people have no choice about in terms of feelings but they still cannot follow their urges.

It is also unfair in my opinion to paint homosexuality as the same situation as race discrimination.

The "down low" is an indication of people who are not honest with their sexual partners. I hardly think they are someone to be championed in that they are having their cake and eating it too, infecting unsuspecting women who believe they have both heterosexual (important here) and MONOGAMOUS (MORE important) partners. I understand the negative pressure in terms of sexual preference but that cannot be an excuse for sexual dishonesty in the era of AIDS and herpes.

 

[Arkaine]

Sorry about the thread necromancy, but I only saw this now, strangely.

I
I agree with you on the church thing although MANY religious people would tell you that their morality is about not accepting what is, in their eyes, wrong. It is unfair, but these people would try to equate homosexuality with addiction or pedophilia as things that people have no choice about in terms of feelings but they still cannot follow their urges.

The main difference between gays and pedophiles are the fact that gays are with two people of the age of consent. You cannot simply lump the 2 together, and doing so is offensive in the extreme. Acting on urges that hurt someone is completely different that acting on urges in which two people of sound and adult reasoning agree to. As for addiction, addiction can be gotten over with other stimulants. Try to get over the need to love someone and be loved back with such a method. People aren't gay for the sex, believe it or not, there's a lot of emotion tied into relationships, myself being in one for over 2 and a half years. If it was just for sex there wouldn't be any cry for gay marraige or relationships would be completely unheard of.

It is also unfair in my opinion to paint homosexuality as the same situation as race discrimination.

The reason people equate homosexuality and race in the one light is because the bigotry can easily be transposed. For example, someone could easily turn around with a statement such as: "Marraige between a man and a man is wrong." the same phrase could have been uttered many a year ago with replacing the two "man" in that sentence with "white man" and "black woman" -- the reason why its used as a similarity is simply because now any sane person can see that the last reasoning is wrong, people looking for gay rights are just trying to show them that once the common thought isn't necessarily the right one and use the successful (to a large extent) black civil rights movement to prove that point. Basically they want to get people to THINK.

The "down low" is an indication of people who are not honest with their sexual partners. I hardly think they are someone to be championed in that they are having their cake and eating it too, infecting unsuspecting women who believe they have both heterosexual (important here) and MONOGAMOUS (MORE important) partners. I understand the negative pressure in terms of sexual preference but that cannot be an excuse for sexual dishonesty in the era of AIDS and herpes.

I don't think anyone is advocating the lying to a partner here, simply that there is a fact people feel the NEED to do such a thing as an indication of the discrimination involved when someone comes out. Pointing out the social factors contributing to a crime is not justifying that crime. Living in Ireland, I can tell you the social factors surrounding the many killings of both republican and nationalist people in the north -- but I would be in NO way saying that murder is correct in any of its forms.

And lastly, just getting to this:

1) You absolutely cannot help being Black, or White, or Asian. The biological components of homosexuality are questionable at best for many reasons that I will be happy to explain if anyone is truly interested. ”

You can't seriously be playing the choice card when in people in Iran are hung, in Iraq they're murdered, if not by their own families then by death squads, and countless other nations throughout history that purposefully murdered gay people STILL had a gay sub-culture?

 

[Rampage]

You can't seriously be playing the choice card when in people in Iran are hung, in Iraq they're murdered, if not by their own families then by death squads, and countless other nations throughout history that purposefully murdered gay people STILL had a gay sub-culture?

That is still no proof of a biological component to homosexuality. The proof is lacking, and although I believe that it is there is a biological influence on sexual preference, there will be skepticism as far as that is concerned until there is more evidence of a biological source. Even in that eventuality, it will be hard for some to accept.

 

[Arkaine]

That is still no proof of a biological component to homosexuality. The proof is lacking, and although I believe that it is there is a biological influence on sexual preference, there will be skepticism as far as that is concerned until there is more evidence of a biological source. Even in that eventuality, it will be hard for some to accept.

I was going for a long-winded response, but I thought I'd go for a more personal touch.

With all due respect, and the hope that I am not over-stepping my mark here, but do you think you could personally tell me about your experience in choosing to be straight? What led you to choose such an option, and the emotional state that followed the choice?

 

[Rampage]

Choosing to be straight? I was simply following the imperative of animals, all living things. In order to be an animal you eat, crap, move, and procreate. In order to place a overwhelming biological influence on homosexual preference, one would have to believe that we have developed biologically a trait that in and of itself limits itself as far as being passed on from generation to generation. That makes little sense.

Personally I think that people exist on a continuum as far as sexual preference is concerned. There are some men who prefer women, some who prefer men, and some in between somehow. I am not certain of how that is, but to simply say it is biological based on anecdotal evidence and flawed logic is NOT science.

For example, thieves and murderers have been jailed and murdered throughout history as well. But I defy anyone to say that fact proves that it is a biological predisposition to be a murderer. That is not science.

NOTE: I am not equating homosexuality and murder, simply debunking the idea that gays and lesbians HAVE to have biologically-induced preferences due to the fact that they exist despite cultural pressure against them.

Lastly, and I have said this before, it should not matter if it is a choice or if is biological or not. People have the right to care for and sleep with who they wish to. PERIOD. By trying to hinge it to other stuff we get away from that FUNDAMENTAL truth. That should be the focus, not making assertions that cannot be proven, at least not YET.

 

[Arkaine]

Choosing to be straight? I was simply following the imperative of animals, all living things. In order to be an animal you eat, crap, move, and procreate. In order to place a overwhelming biological influence on homosexual preference, one would have to believe that we have developed biologically a trait that in and of itself limits itself as far as being passed on from generation to generation. That makes little sense.

And yet we have animals engaging in homosexual acts, animals with no pre-disposition to sex as a tool of recreation and -- what I'm assuming -- no social pressures into the whole situation. In fact, here's a funny story that might give you an idea. Some male penguins choose a male mate. Now, as you know a male penguin carry their female's egg throughout the whole incubation period. Some of these gay penguins effectively break into other penguin territories and replace the other penguins egg with a stone so they can steal the egg for themselves. Obviously the penguins have a need to procreate and so steal eggs in an attempt to do so, yet openly prefer a male mate.. also natural selection is NOT 100% accurate and the same deviation to genes naturally crop up EVEN after that deviation has proved not be sufficient to the survival of the species.

For example, thieves and murderers have been jailed and murdered throughout history as well. But I defy anyone to say that fact proves that it is a biological predisposition to be a murderer. That is not science.

Actually crime rates can be seen as a biological predisposition, there have been several studies that show the children of serial killers, for example, are much more likely to show the social thinking that effects serial killers in the first place.

NOTE: I am not equating homosexuality and murder, simply debunking the idea that gays and lesbians HAVE to have biologically-induced preferences due to the fact that they exist despite cultural pressure against them.

But murder is completely different. It's actually a disorder; a way of thinking that affects people's abilities to make social contact with people. Many murderers find it hard identifying with other people and regress to a barbarism due to this fact. Gay people do not have this problem and never have.

Lastly, and I have said this before, it should not matter if it is a choice or if is biological or not. People have the right to care for and sleep with who they wish to. PERIOD. By trying to hinge it to other stuff we get away from that FUNDAMENTAL truth. That should be the focus, not making assertions that cannot be proven, at least not YET.

The fact is that people use the race movement as a way of showing people the majority was wrong previously in the case of bigotry. The same logic that applied to the racism is applied to the bigotry surrounding homosexuality. I don't see how you can't compare the two?

 

[Rampage]

And yet we have animals engaging in homosexual acts, animals with no pre-disposition to sex as a tool of recreation and -- what I'm assuming -- no social pressures into the whole situation. In fact, here's a funny story that might give you an idea. Some male penguins choose a male mate. Now, as you know a male penguin carry their female's egg throughout the whole incubation period. Some of these gay penguins effectively break into other penguin territories and replace the other penguins egg with a stone so they can steal the egg for themselves. Obviously the penguins have a need to procreate and so steal eggs in an attempt to do so, yet openly prefer a male mate.. also natural selection is NOT 100% accurate and the same deviation to genes naturally crop up EVEN after that deviation has proved not be sufficient to the survival of the species.

If you adopt this as a proof of biological sourcing of homosexuality then you go down a dangerous road. Animals also practice infanticide and do not take care of their elderly. Does that mean we should burn down orphanages and rest homes? I go back to my earlier assertion: Homosexuals should focus on their right to choose to be with whomever they want.

The fact is that people use the race movement as a way of showing people the majority was wrong previously in the case of bigotry. The same logic that applied to the racism is applied to the bigotry surrounding homosexuality. I don't see how you can't compare the two?

I see your point but the comparison is often made deeper than that and as a Black man, that pisses me off. There is no Gay Trade, people made into chattel because of sexual orientation, no 100 million soul holocaust in the Middle Passage for Gays. That is why you have such a pushback on that issue. You are able to separate all of that from the basic point you made, which is rather fair. But for me, it is MUCH more difficult to do.

 

[Arkaine]

If you adopt this as a proof of biological sourcing of homosexuality then you go down a dangerous road. Animals also practice infanticide and do not take care of their elderly. Does that mean we should burn down orphanages and rest homes? I go back to my earlier assertion: Homosexuals should focus on their right to choose to be with whomever they want.

Of course not, hence why I am not suggesting the gays go out and steal people's fertilized ovaries either. The whole point I'm trying to make is that the whole suggestion that homosexuality is a choice, whether created by a person or by social constricts, fails to take into account the fact that such a choice or social constructs would affect the animal kingdom and yet we see proof of homosexuality within that sphere. The thing is gays don't want to focus on the right to choose who they want to be with, they want to choose who they are. Most gay people go through a period of self-loathing because they DON'T want to be with the member of the same sex but simply can't help themselves. Being gay is not who you're with, it's who you are.

I see your point but the comparison is often made deeper than that and as a Black man, that pisses me off. There is no Gay Trade, people made into chattel because of sexual orientation, no 100 million soul holocaust in the Middle Passage for Gays. That is why you have such a pushback on that issue. You are able to separate all of that from the basic point you made, which is rather fair. But for me, it is MUCH more difficult to do.

The world is far different now than it once was. I think a lot of people see the bright pride parades with the men running around in speedos and bunny ears and think "Hey, what's with all the complaining? They obviously can be who they want!" -- But then take into account that in the U.S. being gay is still viable legal ground for firing somebody. I know black people suffered the same discrimination but there's a HUGE difference between THEN and NOW and we were have supposed have learned a hard lesson from the way we treated other people. I'm not even going to get into the defense of marriage act.

Discounting the U.S. look at all the Middle-Eastern countries in the world, where it is viable to hang a gay person JUST because he is gay. Look at people such as Fred Phelps continually ALLOWED to spew actual hate inciting shit (the whole freedom of speech thing ends at inciting violence, I believe) and the fact that it's supported.

Basically gay people, equating the black movement to their own are not trying to cheapen or demean the movement or stress that they have suffered everything the same, they are however seeking to end the same ignorance and bigotry that that movement did. It might be far more civilized now but there are still laws in most countries which make people second-class citizens. That's the only reason for the comparison.

 

[Prophet]

I think the whole thing with focusing on whether or not homosexuality is a choice is because alot of gay people are told that they have a conscious choice to be homosexual and because of that choice, they are going to hell.

I do happen to believe that there has to be some kind of genetic or biological predisposition to homosexuality. I like to compare it to right and left handedness, either you are born naturally favoring your right hand or your left hand and I think it's the same for homosexuality.

And in the case of animals, dolphins have sex for pleasure just like humans I believe... so that's gotta be something right haha?

 

[Rampage]

I do happen to believe that there has to be some kind of genetic or biological predisposition to homosexuality. I like to compare it to right and left handedness, either you are born naturally favoring your right hand or your left hand and I think it's the same for homosexuality.

This for me is a pretty good theory. People are born right or left handed it is believed, strongly or weakly. But people display it later in life (after age 2 or so) and it CAN be affected by society, culture and choice. My own mother was "forced right" and many amputees can attest to the malleability of this hand preference.

I can see the same with sexual preference. People are likely strongly or weakly preferring one sex or another with a delayed development display and an opportunity for choice and environment to play a role.

Another hot potato that keeps people resistant to simply chalking homosexuality up to biology is that there is, I believe, an aversion to removing the choice from sexual matters. It is not lost on some that the next thing after this might be "Hey, I'm a guy, we are biologically driven to be polygamous." or "she is biologically fully developed in spite of her age...why not?". We have always in our society valued rejecting our biological urges and holding that choice as proof of our mental superiority.

I am not equating homosexuality with promiscuity or sleeping with underage women, I am simply showing how other acts of sex are not allowed to hide behind biology in spite of evidence that there is that component there.

I am saying as a practical matter that gays and lesbians will be better off, barring some definitive scientific discovery that is likely not forthcoming, focusing on their rights as citizens to love, marry and sleep with who they want. The biology argument I believe is not helpful due to the lack of hard evidence and the visceral cultural rejection of biology as a controlling factor for this human behavior.

 

[Karma]

my mother, a psycho therapist has often said and believes (as do i) that sexuality is more like a "contiuum" than something set in stone for most people. if other aspects of our being evolve and change as we grow and learn and experience new things...why does sexuality have to be set in stone? the problem in america is that from birth, children are socialized and reared to think a certain way about sex and sexuality and so many who do NOT fit the molds they are told to fit end up having terrible problems because of it. many men and women will never know much less be able to accept who they are because of this.

everyone from the American Psychological Association on down knows (or should know) that "being gay" isnt a choice. WHO would "CHOOSE" that in this racist, sexist, homophobic country? and why should they have to be content with someone who isnt gay telling THEM that what they feel isnt natural?

 

[Arkaine]

This for me is a pretty good theory. People are born right or left handed it is believed, strongly or weakly. But people display it later in life (after age 2 or so) and it CAN be affected by society, culture and choice. My own mother was "forced right" and many amputees can attest to the malleability of this hand preference.

I can see the same with sexual preference. People are likely strongly or weakly preferring one sex or another with a delayed development display and an opportunity for choice and environment to play a role.

Society may play a role but conscious decision? I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong. Also, it has been proven that those people forced to write with their right-handedness is a dillusion way of thinking when it comes to sexuality. Your mother was taught a SKILL about how to write using her right hand, sexuality is a FEELING. Completely different at the most basic of levels. I could go out and have sex with a woman, many gay men have, it does not mean that they FEEL toward having sex with women, nor does it equate to them being straight. Sexuality is in your head, not something that is learnt.

I think what Prophet meant was you are born with a feeling of attraction toward a certain sex, not that it can be changed through social conditioning. And those gay guys that were 'cured' through those whole prayer groups and so forth? (1) It's proven to be VERY, VERY, psychologically damaging BUT also the vast majority of them go back to being gay.

Another hot potato that keeps people resistant to simply chalking homosexuality up to biology is that there is, I believe, an aversion to removing the choice from sexual matters. It is not lost on some that the next thing after this might be "Hey, I'm a guy, we are biologically driven to be polygamous." or "she is biologically fully developed in spite of her age...why not?". We have always in our society valued rejecting our biological urges and holding that choice as proof of our mental superiority.

Having sex with other people? Choice. A conscious decision. Having sex with a child? A conscious decision. When can you tell me you made the conscious decision based around your sexuality.

Tell me, have you ever considered yourself sexually attracted to a man? And you just made the choice to turn around and say 'No, I refuse that feeling!' and it just goes away? Or even less obvious, say you find a girl repulsive, in every single way, not even the whole 'nice personality' thing? She seriously and utterly repulses you in everyway.. can you make a conscious decision to like her? Despite you FEELING repulsed by her every action?

I am not equating homosexuality with promiscuity or sleeping with underage women, I am simply showing how other acts of sex are not allowed to hide behind biology in spite of evidence that there is that component there.

Pedophiles totally hide behind biology. The thing is that they make a conscious effort to sleep with underage people.. something morally wrong by any standards. They are still pedophiles.. it's just if they act on it that it's against the law. Hell, ever hear of chemical castration? Some of them opt for it. I don't understand how you can't see: Choice to sleep with someone does not mean the same thing as being attracted to a certain sex. The whole analogy is preposterous!

I am saying as a practical matter that gays and lesbians will be better off, barring some definitive scientific discovery that is likely not forthcoming, focusing on their rights as citizens to love, marry and sleep with who they want. The biology argument I believe is not helpful due to the lack of hard evidence and the visceral cultural rejection of biology as a controlling factor for this human behavior.

The biology argument is brought up because there are still ignorant people in the world who state "Why should you have the right to do those things when it's obvious you have a choice. If you don't like it, choose to be straight."

why does sexuality have to be set in stone?

I fully agree with you, that sexuality is a gray scale and you could be anywhere on that scale. But I also believe that the vast majority of people are programmed to be on one extreme or another (just like guys, or just like girls). Those that linger on the grayer area are bisexual (hence the term 'prefer male bisexual' or 'prefer female bisexual'.