Do you really believe that people are born gay? (parade, cost, dictators)

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

Really? How many people are we talking about here? Do you just bump into these people while picking out canteloupes at the grocery store and all of a sudden they start talking to you about being gay and their past experience of sexual abuse? I don't think that's ever happened to me.

You have no idea who I am or what my life experiences are. I happen to have had and have some very close friendships and frank conversations with all kinds of people, including gay people. I believe you assume because I find the gay political agenda manipulative and disingenuous it naturally follows that I'm a homophobe and a bigot who couldn't or wouldn't possibly have any meaningful relationship with a gay person or people much less on such and intimate level regarding sensitive personal issues, on both sides of the fence.

Or at least maybe not such relationships where I didn't accept and respect someone for who they are but have an agenda to change them. My experiences are personal and anecdotal, not a scientific sampling of a cross section of America, however my experiences, like most people have helped shaped my attitudes and beliefs. At least my thoughts and comments are real and honest and although frank I hope sensible people do realize I'm not out to viscously denigrate anybody because they disagree with me.

Perhaps you think every gay person is a two-dimensional stereotype of the archetype presented by the gay agenda. I disagree and think you may have some tendencies towards bigotry as even in my limited experience I've found gay people run pretty much the same gamut of beliefs, attitudes and even political range as hetero people. I don't believe they all line up to get their ideas and beliefs from the political left.

Originally Posted by saganista

That would be the federal power to prevent bigots and their fellow-travelers from discriminating against people based on their memberhsip in some locally disfavored group or other. As the human capacity for bigotry often seems boundless, that sort of power has always been in need of expansion.


I think many people will agree with me that you are wearing a rather thin disguise. Marriage, employment, contract, property ownership, inheritance, and a whole host of other rights that you take for granted are at issue, not merely consensual sexual acts.

Your comment illustrates my point. Gay people are merely people who happen to be gay. Not every one of them looks in the mirror and considers themselves a victim or believe they need a political cause to protect them from the rest of society. Not every gay person agrees with you or your agenda. I think sometimes you come off a little over-confident and sound like you assume to speak for all gay people. Even if you are gay yourself that doesn't mean you speak for all gay people, you only speak for yourself or those who identify you as a spokesperson.

Originally Posted by saganista

Groups are collections of individuals having some characteristic in common. It doesn't matter whether it is one individual or two or more banding together who petition the government for redress of grievances. They are in any case exercising a primary Constitutional right. Federalism has historically been a phony façade for allowing local majorities to deprive citizens of their rights. There is no honor or service to country in that.

You sound as if you believe your political agenda is somehow more honorable or compassionate than everybody else’s but in my opinion you are engaging in the same tactics as those you oppose by trying to impose your belief system on others through legislation. A government cannot legislate a change of heart and minds, it can only impose rule of law. The haters on both sides of the aisle who would use government to impose their beliefs on others are wrong.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

You have no idea who I am or what my life experiences are. I happen to have had and have some very close friendships and frank conversations with all kinds of people, including gay people. I believe you assume because I find the gay political agenda manipulative and disingenuous it naturally follows that I'm a homophobe and a bigot who couldn't or wouldn't possibly have any meaningful relationship with a gay person or people much less on such and intimate level regarding sensitive personal issues, on both sides of the fence.

No, I just know that it's pure BS when you claim that you are different enough from everyone else that gays somehow disproportionately approach you and start going into detail about all the sexual abuse that they suffered from as children. I understand that your efforts to brand a non-existent "homosexual agenda" as being manipulative and disingenuous is going to be a steeply uphill battle for you since there isn't any actual basis for such a position, but simply making stuff up out of thin air is not an acceptable solution to that problem.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Your comment illustrates my point. Gay people are merely people who happen to be gay. Not every one of them looks in the mirror and considers themselves a victim...

That would be odd, since society has done nothing but call any of them inferior and deviant for a very long time. I would be surprised that any gay -- or any black for that matter -- could claim not to feel victimized in light of the laws and circumstances that have long been thrust in their faces by the society that they live in. Not so long ago, I could have included Jews and Chinese and even Irish in that statement. But their situations have improved rather dramatically as the result of a Jewish-agenda, a Chinese-agenda, and an Irish-agenda.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

A government cannot legislate a change of heart and minds, it can only impose rule of law. The haters on both sides of the aisle who would use government to impose their beliefs on others are wrong.

No, they aren't. Although "the aisle" in a political sense has very little to do with things here, it's really just the one side that is wrong.

[Sensei Han]

I'm not a scientist and I don't believe that science can prove the existence of anything - I feel it's a sham...

And I believe that homosexuality is an influenced behavior. I don't believe someone can be born gay.

[ATX Homeboy]

As a teacher of fifteen years, i have to weigh in here. Every year there are one or two students who "come out.". These children are very young as i teach elementary and middle school aged kids. Their parents are heterosexual, so where do they "learn" this mode of thought. It has become apparent to me over the years that they are born this way. Keep in mind that many dont come out until they are adults so in that regard i dont think its a sudden choice. They just come to the realization that as adults they dont have to hide who they really are. But, lets take it one step further and just for the sake of argument say they do choose to be gay. As americans are we not free to choose how we want to live our lives?

[jwm1964]

quote=saganista;19997778]No, I just know that it's pure BS when you claim that you are different enough from everyone else that gays somehow disproportionately approach you and start going into detail about all the sexual abuse that they suffered from as children. I understand that your efforts to brand a non-existent "homosexual agenda" as being manipulative and disingenuous is going to be a steeply uphill battle for you since there isn't any actual basis for such a position, but simply making stuff up out of thin air is not an acceptable solution to that problem. [/quote]

I think you owe me an apology here for:
1. Either intentionally or unintentionally re-phrasing my words into something I did not say.

What I said verbatim was, "I happen to have had and have some very close friendships and frank conversations with all kinds of people, including gay people"

What you state I said, "you claim that you are different enough from everyone else that gays somehow disproportionately approach you and start going into detail about all the sexual abuse that they suffered from as children."

A close friendship develops over time and sharing intimate details about experiences and beliefs is part of the process of investing part of oneself in another with trust and faith that they won't misuse or hurt you with this information but support and encourage you is what makes that friendship close.

I also don't know that I am so different from anybody else, I don't understand why you think I claim to be.

2. You are basically me a liar, which yes, I find offensive and believe you owe me an apology.

Moving on . . .

You continue to re-phrase my words, "your efforts to brand a non-existent "homosexual agenda" as being manipulative and disingenuous is going to be a steeply uphill battle for you since there isn't any actual basis for such a position, but simply making stuff up out of thin air is not an acceptable solution to that problem."

I don't see anywhere on the original post where I used the term "homosexual agenda", but I don't deny that I haven't or wouldn't use the term to describe the political agenda to establish "group" rights for the gay community, or gay people who live in the United States.

If you object to the term "homosexual agenda" I repeat, that is not the term I used in this instance. If you are asserting there is not a political agenda to establish group rights for the gay community, I'm just sure how to respond to that.

As for my belief that many of the arguments supporting this agenda are manipulative and disingenuous, yes again, this is my real belief. I really believe this, I'm not making it up out of thin air. If you disagree with my belief that's fine, but I still believe this and I'm not sure what you want me to prove about it? If you would like to know the reasons I believe this I could share them, but I don't think you really do.

and no, I don't wish to denigrate anybody because they disagree with me. What really made me angry is your dismissal of relationships that are important to me. Which yes, was silly as if I were going to be so thin-skinned I shouldn't have mentioned them in the first place and I shouldn't have had any expectations that you would have any respect for my relationships anyway.

Originally Posted by saganista

I think you meant to say "US Constitution". You know, that thing with all the references to equal rights in it?

No, I meant what I said, "I don't believe they (gay people) all line up to get their ideas and beliefs from the political left."

I don't believe The Constition makes no reference to sexual rights other than a reference to liberties which I believe could be construed to include sexual rights and the delegation of rights not specifically stated to fall to the authority of the people and the states - to paraphrase very loosely.

Originally Posted by saganista

That would be odd, since society has done nothing but call any of them inferior and deviant for a very long time. I would be surprised that any gay -- or any black for that matter -- could claim not to feel victimized in light of the laws and circumstances that have long been thrust in their faces by the society that they live in. Not so long ago, I could have included Jews and Chinese and even Irish in that statement. But their situations have improved rather dramatically as the result of a Jewish-agenda, a Chinese-agenda, and an Irish-agenda that you I suspect would have opposed at the time as well.

Yes, there has been injustice in our society throughout history, however I'm not sure how that applies to my statement, "Not every one of them (gay people) looks in the mirror nad considers themselves a victim. . ."

Originally Posted by saganista

No, they aren't. Although "the aisle" in a political sense has very little to do with things here, it's really just the one side that is wrong, and unfortunately, you do seem to be on it.

If your insinuating that my political affiliation is Republican you are wrong, I'm registered Libertarian. However my reference to both sides of the aisle is in regards to Republican vs Democrat politics as for all practical purposes our political system currently functions as a two party system.

As a Libertarian I stand by my statement, "A government cannot legislate a change of heart and minds, it can only impose rule of law. The haters on both sides of the aisle who would use government to impose their beliefs on others are wrong"

You disagree with me. Okay, I respect that although I fear it and will oppose it legally and through law. This is part of why I am uncomfortable with the gay political agenda. I feel many if not most gay people do feel as you do and consider it justified to impose their beliefs upon others through law.

I believe the imposition of moral behavior either way is an act of violence, as such I believe you are attempting to commit violence against me and others who don't believe as you do.

This may make you angry and provoke insults from you, but this is what I believe and I should be able to express my beliefs in this country without fear of retribution. Don't you feel you should be able to express your beliefs, even if they are different than mine?

Another point you may miss, but by attacking me or assuming I support legislation or groups to deny you, your individual (not group) rights is also wrong. If I'm not an enemy to your cause you are sure pushing hard to put me there. I oppose all legislature to impose moral behavior through legislation as an act of violence.

Finally, we need to tone down the rhetoric and treat eachother with respect. Both of us. If you can't do that please don't bother responding to my posts not addressed to you or replying to me directly.

[saganista]

I can commend an apparently sincere effort to return to this thread on a more civil and respectful basis than that which was earlier demonstrated. The complaints brought along, however, I take to be not particularly meritorious, as I shall explain in turn.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I think you owe me an apology here for:
1. Either intentionally or unintentionally re-phrasing my words into something I did not say. What I said verbatim was, "I happen to have had and have some very close friendships and frank conversations with all kinds of people, including gay people" What you state I said, "you claim that you are different enough from everyone else that gays somehow disproportionately approach you and start going into detail about all the sexual abuse that they suffered from as children."
A close friendship develops over time and sharing intimate details about experiences and beliefs is part of the process of investing part of oneself in another with trust and faith that they won't misuse or hurt you with this information but support and encourage you is what makes that friendship close.

My comment above does not question the content or deep meaning of any of the stories reported. What I challenged was the assumption that your own such experiences have been so far beyond those that many other people will in fact have had as to make your opinions somehow more valid and therefore less subject to even argumentation, much less contradiction. That notion was, and still is, bunk. You do not have a priveleged frame of reference.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

2. You continue to re-phrase my words, "your efforts to brand a non-existent "homosexual agenda" as being manipulative and disingenuous is going to be a steeply uphill battle for you since there isn't any actual basis for such a position, but simply making stuff up out of thin air is not an acceptable solution to that problem."
I don't see anywhere on the original post where I used the term "homosexual agenda", but I don't deny that I haven't or wouldn't use the term to describe the political agenda to establish "group" rights for the gay community, or gay people who live in the United States.

You have used the term "gay political agenda" (and will again) and also stated that "Being gay is not a lifestyle, it is a political statement and movement..." What was it, after all, that you could otherwise have found to be "manipulative and disingenuous"?

"Making stuff up out of thin air" again referred to a concocted claim of special expertise based on self-reporting of seemingly intimate conversations with an undisclosed but necessarily small number of allegedly gay individuals.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

If you are asserting there is not a political agenda to establish group rights for the gay community, I'm just sure how to respond to that.

Perhaps you could stop to consider that there is no such thing as group rights. There are only individual rights that some seek to deny on the basis of nothing more than an individual's being included in a group that is disfavored by that very same "some". Given even the fullest conceivable form of "gay equality" in this country, there would still be no right that you could obtain by becoming gay that you do not already enjoy. There are no group rights or special rights being sought at all. Only equal rights.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

As for my belief tht many of the arguments supporting this agenda are manipulative and disingenuous, yes again, this is my real belief. I really believe this, I'm not making it up out of thin air.

I have not questioned the reality of your belief, only the reality of what it is that you believe in.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

No, I meant what I said, "I don't believe they (gay people) all line up to get their ideas and beliefs from the political left."
I don't believe The Constition makes no reference to sexual rights other than a reference to liberties which I believe could be construed to include sexual rights and the delegation of rights not specifically stated to fall to the authority of the people and the states - to paraphrase very loosely.

Too loosely. Precision is important in the law, which is one reason why it can seem to become verbose. It is not at all necessary that a specific right be mentioned in the Constitution for it to exist and be protected. This in fact was the Federalist argument against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution at all. There were too many individual rights to list each of them in a single place, and if a list were once made, demagogues would soon enough start claiming that because a particular right was not included on the list, it didn't exist. The Ninth Amendment came into existence for the express purpose of derailing the very argument that you are trying to make: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Yes, there has been injustice in our society throughout history, however I'm not sure how that applies to my statement, "Not every one of them (gay people) looks in the mirror nad considers themselves a victim. . ."

Are you now or have you ever been a member of a group that has suffered from presistent, pervasive discrimination? Even if not, how could you imagine that a lifetime of day-after-day, hour-after-hour derogation would have no effect on a person?

Originally Posted by jwm1964

As a Libertarian I stand by my statement, "A government cannot legislate a change of heart and minds, it can only impose rule of law. The haters on both sides of the aisle who would use government to impose their beliefs on others are wrong"

Your sense of political affiliation is not interesting, nor is it related to the validity of any of your arguments. The one above is simply an excuse for allowing even the worst sorts of abuse by some people of some other people to go unopposed by society and unchecked by law.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

You disagree with me. Okay, I respect that although I fear it and will oppose it legally and through law. This is part of why I am uncomfortable with the gay political agenda. I feel many if not most gay people do feel as you do and consider it justified to impose their beliefs upon others through law. I believe the imposition of moral behavior either way is an act of violence, as such I believe you are attempting to commit violence against me and others who don't believe as you do.

You are not harmed. You lose nothing that you have any legitimate claim to. That is not violence.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Finally, we need to tone down the rhetoric and treat eachother with respect. Both of us. If you can't do that please don't bother responding to my posts not addressed to you or replying to me directly.

The recognition of a need for reform may be appreciated.

[Francois]

Originally Posted by FeedThemToTheLions

I believe the gay people who say they were born gay.
Why would they lie?
Maybe not everyone has a choice.
Maybe not everyone is 'born gay'.

It all comes down to this. Someone tells you HE (or she) did not "choose" whom to be attracted to, why would you not believe it? What motive would they have for lying, or for "choosing" to be gay for that matter? Why would anyone choose to be a member of a group that suffers regular disdain if not outright discrimination; is generally fair game for firing (most states don't have civil rights laws that cover sexual orientation, and of course the military doesn't--not quite), and most of all, your dating pool is about 1/20 of that of a heterosexual. WHY would someone "choose" to have only 5% of men as potential mates instead of 95% of women? Nobody who claims homosexuality is a "choice" has ever thought through how little sense it even makes that anyone would "choose" to be an outcast member of society, even now, let alone 50 or more years ago. Every, I mean EVERY gay or lesbian person I know spent years in their youth trying desperately to "be straight", to no avail.

Why would you (generic) not trust someone's own personal story, that they know their own mind better than you do?

What is 'being gay' anyways?
Is it a lustful thought?
The action?
Is there a regularity here ...does the action/thought need to happen once a year?
Once a month? All day? Etc.
[/quote]

Those who claim you just wake up one day and decide "Hey, I think I'll be gay now--life was too easy" never think these things through. They just choose to believe it's some kind of "political action" or whatever, so wrapped up are they in their own world ("I don't experience homosexual feelings, so I don't believe anybody else does, either".) It's like a right-handed person saying someone would "choose" to be left-handed just because they themselves can't imagine doing things left-handed. Well sorry, a certain percentage of the population does. And it's a lot easier to be in the "majority", whether that means right-handed or heterosexual.

Virtually all people make choices in this world that make their life EASIER, not HARDER. The "it's a choice" folks never seem to have a reason as to why 5% of the population would (without even knowing each other) simply "decide" to be a member of a disliked minority with a much harder road to hoe than they would if they were the "majority".

And, to answer the last part, being "gay" (or lesbian) refers to the condition of being primarily attracted to one's own sex. It has nothing to do wth behavior--you can be gay and be a virgin, and you can even be a gay man and sleep with women or vice versa. Similarly, you can be heterosexual and sleep with a man, but if it's not your primary innate orientation, the action doesn't define the state of being.

Why are people even arguing this? Why does it affect anybody, whether someone else is attracted to men, women, both, or neither? Aren't there more important things to concentrate your time on?????

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

I can commend an apparently sincere effort to return to this thread on a more civil and respectful basis than that which was earlier demonstrated. The complaints brought along, however, I take to be not particularly meritorious, as I shall explain in turn.

What I said, is that I have and have had close and intimate relationships with people who are gay. Some of these friends shared that they didn't support the gay political agenda and some shared experiences concerning abuse.

That is truth.

I have beliefs, and ideas which in part are drawn from these experiences, no more no less. As a matter of fact I explicitly note that these experiences are anecdotal, not representative of a some kind of scientific sampling. ie opinions.

You in turn accused me of lying, you also lied yourself by accusing me of saying that my experiences are somehow extraordinary and above others common human experience.

My experiences are common to all those who in life meet and make dear friends both similar and dis-similar to themselves.

[foxywench]

all i know for sure is that i didnt wake up one morning and think "hey im gonna like girls now" its always been there always will...

and any person, being, metaphysical, diety, govt ect that cant accept my rights to love whichever consenting adult i so choose isnt worth my time or trouble!
all i ask for is respect and the right to be with whoever i want to be with...

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by foxywench

all i know for sure is that i didnt wake up one morning and think "hey im gonna like girls now" its always been there always will...

and any person, being, metaphysical, diety, govt ect that cant accept my rights to love whichever consenting adult i so choose isnt worth my time or trouble!
all i ask for is respect and the right to be with whoever i want to be with...

LOL. Good point!

It's not, like, a person wakes up one morning at age 17 and decides to learn Japanese, take up gardening. and also decides to take up homosexuality just for the heck of it!