31st January 2003, 11:23 PM
I didn't even read the whole debate about sexuality being a choice or linked to genetics. However, here's my thoughts on it, and they reflect Weltal's thoughts pretty well.
I too don't see how claiming sexuality is something those with whatever orientation can't help but be. That's actually a bit of an insult. That's like saying someone who likes sports or something couldn't help but love sports, as it's built in.
Lots of people link the claim to some mythical "real study on genetics" that "prooves" that one gene on one chromosome is indeed the "gay gene". Though some studies support the claim, like a lot of genetic studies (including ones linking violent behavior to genes and other behavior patterns) this one is under fire recently for accuracy. It wasn't the most accurate of studies, but like rule # (I forget the number) of debating, always cling to whatever some scientist in some circle said that somehow in some way might be interpreted as supporting your point of view. Well, basically that was a lot of me just saying that that particular study didn't end conclusivly and is pretty much just as accurate as a flip of a coin.
Anyway, to the actual thing. What's the big deal about this? There is a sect (not even representing the opinions of all those who are flaming homos, I use the scientific term here) of people who have some huge problem and actually take offense to the idea that sexual orientation is a free will choice. I can think of two reasons. These people, some of whom are straight indeed, may be afraid of their orientation suddenly changing, so they just blot the idea from their mind by claiming it's not a possibility. The other is also fear related. They may fear that if they open it up to free will then that would mean others could ridicule them more openly for whatever reason because it is in fact a choice. In other words, the only reason they would defend THAT point so vehemontly is purely out of fear. If they truly embraced choice of lifestyle (they shouldn't call it a choice of lifestyle if it's not), they wouldn't be so afraid of this potential backlash and would say "we choose this" in a very proud manner, like a gamer saying "I choose you Pikachu!", um, I messed up that comparison... Anyway, seriously I'd think the sexualy oriented would RATHER have it as free will. I mean, you're human, well, you're a falcon, and they have sexuality too, wouldn't you rather know that at any time you could just change forms?
Eh, whatever. In any case I think the main reason is probably the latter of the two I mentioned. They must be terrified of religious people getting all up in their face about it if they said "yeah it's free will". Sheesh, if you can ignore everything else religions might say about you, why not one more? As far as it goes, since I do see it as free will, I do think that just like limiting any other choices, like gambling or whatnot, religions have every right to make "no gay" a part of their requirements without turning into a hate group. Of course, those people driving around beating the living tar out of what their religion calls sinners is just plain stupid and hateful. Why not go around beating up liars too? It's just nuts, but anyway, my main point is this. I think it's free will and I think it's hardly hateful because of that for some religion to say "you can't be gay", but not something stupid like "God hates gays" in that very "you can't help it and we know that" kind of way.
I too don't see how claiming sexuality is something those with whatever orientation can't help but be. That's actually a bit of an insult. That's like saying someone who likes sports or something couldn't help but love sports, as it's built in.
Lots of people link the claim to some mythical "real study on genetics" that "prooves" that one gene on one chromosome is indeed the "gay gene". Though some studies support the claim, like a lot of genetic studies (including ones linking violent behavior to genes and other behavior patterns) this one is under fire recently for accuracy. It wasn't the most accurate of studies, but like rule # (I forget the number) of debating, always cling to whatever some scientist in some circle said that somehow in some way might be interpreted as supporting your point of view. Well, basically that was a lot of me just saying that that particular study didn't end conclusivly and is pretty much just as accurate as a flip of a coin.
Anyway, to the actual thing. What's the big deal about this? There is a sect (not even representing the opinions of all those who are flaming homos, I use the scientific term here) of people who have some huge problem and actually take offense to the idea that sexual orientation is a free will choice. I can think of two reasons. These people, some of whom are straight indeed, may be afraid of their orientation suddenly changing, so they just blot the idea from their mind by claiming it's not a possibility. The other is also fear related. They may fear that if they open it up to free will then that would mean others could ridicule them more openly for whatever reason because it is in fact a choice. In other words, the only reason they would defend THAT point so vehemontly is purely out of fear. If they truly embraced choice of lifestyle (they shouldn't call it a choice of lifestyle if it's not), they wouldn't be so afraid of this potential backlash and would say "we choose this" in a very proud manner, like a gamer saying "I choose you Pikachu!", um, I messed up that comparison... Anyway, seriously I'd think the sexualy oriented would RATHER have it as free will. I mean, you're human, well, you're a falcon, and they have sexuality too, wouldn't you rather know that at any time you could just change forms?
Eh, whatever. In any case I think the main reason is probably the latter of the two I mentioned. They must be terrified of religious people getting all up in their face about it if they said "yeah it's free will". Sheesh, if you can ignore everything else religions might say about you, why not one more? As far as it goes, since I do see it as free will, I do think that just like limiting any other choices, like gambling or whatnot, religions have every right to make "no gay" a part of their requirements without turning into a hate group. Of course, those people driving around beating the living tar out of what their religion calls sinners is just plain stupid and hateful. Why not go around beating up liars too? It's just nuts, but anyway, my main point is this. I think it's free will and I think it's hardly hateful because of that for some religion to say "you can't be gay", but not something stupid like "God hates gays" in that very "you can't help it and we know that" kind of way.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)