For all of you STILL unsure whether GAY is a CHOICE:

[cboy4]

Here's some more information I found in the San Jose (CA) Mercury News:

I know for a fact there are some DUers who inexplicably feel human beings can determine their sexual orientation. I hear buzz words like "lifestyle," etc., etc.

So, I would like to help. And I would like to hear reasons if and why anyone still believes people choose to be gay.

I could live to be ah thousand, and still not understand this line of thinking.

But anyway...

Growing research suggests being gay is not 'a choice'

By Mike Swift
Mercury News

Compared with straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

Researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings — including a highly anticipated study this winter — would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of the recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys," suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision."

Until 2007, CNN polls had found that a majority of Americans believed gay people could change their sexual orientation if they chose to; it was only last year that a majority for the first time said homosexuality was an inborn trait. Christian groups such as Exodus International argue "that homosexuals who desire to change can do so." One prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, found controversial evidence that therapy can cause some gay people to change to a heterosexual orientation, although the study concluded that a "complete change" was uncommon.

While sexual behavior may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.

A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause.

"In the past decade, I think the pendulum has swung more toward biological theory and biological causes," said Richard Lippa, a psychology professor at California State University-Fullerton, who has studied hair patterns and other biological traits in gay men."

Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied — from sheep to fruit flies — has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity.

"I really believe the reason most humans are straight is the same reason that most crocodiles are straight, and the same reason most whales are straight," Bocklandt said. "Nature would not leave something so important for reproduction, for the survival of the species, to coincidence."

MORE------------------> http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11104232

[rockymountaindem]

1. The answer is simple...

Evil sheep. Evil, deviant fruit flies. Your "science" impresses me not.

:)

[jeff30997]

6. Lol,yeah.

Those deviant fruit-flies are going straight to hell.:rofl:

[The Doctor.]

28. Well... I hope those fruit flies are nice...

because I ate an assorted sub once....or 50 times.

I'm sure that I'm just as heinous as those flies.

[grace0418]

49. Those fruit flies better not be teaching the other fruit flies it's okay to be gay.

I WILL NOT have gay fruit flies in my fruit bowl.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yardwork]

64. Genetic treatment to cure the gay? What a horrible idea.

I love myself the way I am. I don't want somebody to "cure" me. Life is not "difficult" for me because I am a lesbian, but because of the unfair laws against me.

Would you suggest that all darker-skinned people be "genetically cured" of the amount of melanin in their skin just because some people are racist?

The suggestion is appalling.

[bluedawg12]

91. Technically, "phobia" is a disease. Maybe gene Rx for homophobia?

:sarcasm:

[yardwork]

95. Thank you, mods!

[Zhade]

183. Who the FUCK was that asshole?

PM me if need be.

[Puglover]

68. In the same vein we could offer awkward straight folks the option

to be gay! Fab idea! I mean if the gay gene is "kind of like sickle cell anemia" what would the straight gene be sorta like? Colorblindness?

[bean fidhleir]

72. I think you really need to put a tag on posts like that. There are still enough nitwits in the

world whose minds (for want of a better word) actually DO work that way that it's easy for people to jump to the wrong conclusion.

[LostinVA]

76. This is a disgusting post -- anti-gay Eugenics

I think you may be on the wrong site if you believe this.

[Puglover]

79. Hi LiV.

He has sadly left the building. :hi:

[LostinVA]

80. I just noticed that!

Sorry for bothering you guys before I noticed!

[Fearless]

103. Sadly?

:rofl:

[mondo joe]

78. Dear Mr Troll: What's hard about being gay is not innate to being gay, but

is the result of people being assholes to gays.

[mooseprime]

2. hearing people talk like it's a choice makes my brain bleed.

like they remember the moment in their lives when they made the big choice for themselves and after himming and hawing they decided to go with straight? and you're right, the use of the word "lifestyle" is really the finest hour of that kind of damaged thinking. must be a fundamental lack of empathy, all i can figure.

[LynzM]

108. This is my response, as well.

"so, tell me... when did you *decide* to be straight?" :banghead:

[ldf]

174. "lifestyle"

is right up there with "preference"....

a loaded term, purposely used.

:grr:

[Starry Messenger]

3. Great article cboy4.

I rec'd it.

[Skittles]

4. just tell me who the naysayers are, and I will kick their ass

yes INDEED

[glowing]

5. My Uncle had two gay horses.. You'd drive by the field and see them

humping... No big deal. Its just life.

[tabatha]

7. Anybody with half a brain knows it is not a choice.

[glowing]

11. I finally got my mom to understand that people would not naturally choose

to be gay.. why endure a lifetime of discrimination for a choice. I think it came about because of this one woman she worked for.. for a while she dated a woman.. then she broke up with the woman and started dating a man. So, I said, she must be bisexual. AND then I asked why she even cared.. I know the woman drove everyone nuts and was a sloppy individual with annoying habits, but that's her character and has nothing to do with who she sleeps with.. she's just an annoying person.

[Ilsa]

107. I suspect that sexuality is more of a continuum,

not an either/or situation. And another axis may be about the sex drive overall, whether gay or straight.

[tabatha]

116. Some people like to experiment.

People who are truly gay, do not - and tend to have long-term relationships.

[TypeKast]

8. ??

If people just spent a few seconds thinking in other peoples' shoes before hating, this "debate" would be as exciting as debating over choosing race.

[BlooInBloo]

9. As if it matters. There's nothing wrong with it.

[JI7]

10. Are there people on DU who think it's a choice ?

[LostinVA]

44. Oh yeah

[nomorenomore08]

106. They may not think it's a "choice" per se, like the right-wing reactionaries do.

But there are some here who seem to buy into a skewed (and inaccurate) perception of what "gay" is, implicitly identifying it as a "lifestyle" or behavior rather than an essential part of who someone is.

[floridablue]

12. I thought who/what I am was choice. but then

One day I woke up and thought I was a parakeet. So I decided I couldn't keep changing and gave away my beak.

[Wilms]

13. I don't understand how it matters.

It sounds like a defensive reaction to nutjobs screaming that gays made a choice.

Why let the H8ers frame the discussion?

[JackBeck]

15. Interesting point.

Every time the Wingers accuse us of being something that's subversive, it tends to be them projecting their own insecurities onto us.

They can choose their religion and can choose to change it at any time. They also tend to go door-to-door recruiting followers. They also want to instill their beliefs into our children using the public school system.

It's like they're always on the offensive with the LGBT community, while we waste resources trying to prove them wrong. Yet the entire time they continue to do everything they accuse us of perpetrating.

[youthere]

58. That's my point...

I don't believe it's a choice..but even if it were...why should it matter?

[JackBeck]

14. Most of this type of research tends to be flawed.

I'll reserve my support until I examine the sample used to come to these conclusions. Most research only includes white people.

Until it's shown that there is a significant representation of all races, I'll pass.

[cboy4]

26. You should be in favor of any data that convinces

people that homosexuality is not a choice.

What am I missing?

[JackBeck]

182. Kick.

Please see my reply below in this sub-thread for clarification.

[Bonn1997]

41. How is race relevant?

Do you think homosexuality is not a choice for white people but is a choice for people of other races? I don't get it.

[Terran]

67. Sooo, you were thinking the results would be different for people

of non-white ethnicities? Why exactly would that be? Especially considering the article points out that homosexual behavior is found in most non-human species that have been studied for it along with humans; that would tend to indicate a certain universality that goes far beyond merely human notion of race.

Other cultures may express/enact homosexual behavior differently from white people, that's certainly true; but it seems highly improbable that skin color would be a factor in the 'choice' issue.

[rucky]

94. As opposed to all that other research that suggests the contrary?

There is such a thing as the benefit of the doubt, or preponderance of evidence you know.

[bluedawg12]

129. What is the genetic difference between the races? Is there a genetic marker?

As far as I know there isn't any genetic differences that could identify a social construct termed "race".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)#Molecular_lineages.2C_Y_chromosomes_and_mitochondrial_DNA

According to Jonathan Marks,

By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1)most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic - that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal - that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left - the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal - was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it - as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools - did not exist.<78>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Defining_race

Any two neighboring villages or towns will show some genetic differentiation from each other and thus could be defined as a race. Thus any attempt to classify races would be imposing an artificial discontinuity on what is otherwise a naturally occurring continuous phenomenon.

However, other scientists disagree by claiming that the assertion that race is biologically meaningless is politically motivated and that genetic differences are significant. Neil Risch states that numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races with regard to susceptibility and natural history of a chronic disease, though acknowledges that these differences do not constitute any major subdivisions of the human species: '...These conclusions seem consistent with the claim that "there is no biological basis for 'race'" and that "the myth of major genetic differences across 'races' is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence". Of course, the use of the term "major" leaves the door open for possible differences but a priori limits any potential significance of such differences.' Effectively Neil Risch is attempting to redefine "race" for human populations to represent that small proportion of variation that is known to vary between continental populations. It is well established, that the level of differentiation between the continental human groups, as measured by the statistic FST is about 0.06-0.1 (6-10%), with about 5-10% of variation at the population level (that is between different populations occupying the same continent) and about 75-85% of variation within populations.(Risch et al., 2002; Templeton, 1998; Ossorio and Duster, 2005; Lewontin, 2005). Tempeton (1998) states that in biology a level of 0.25-0.3 (20-30%) of differentiation normally accepted in biological literature for a population to be considered a race or subspecies.

"A standard criterion for a subspecies or race in the nonhuman literature under the traditional definition of a subspecies as a geographically circumbscribed, sharply differentiated population is to have FST values of at least 0.25 to 0.3 (Smith et al. 1997). Hence as judged by the criterion in the nonhuman literature, the human FST value is too small to have taxonomic significance under the traditional subspecies definition."(Templeton, 1998)

Indeed Neil Risch himself avoids defining race, when asked to respond to the comment "Genome variation research does not support the existence of human races.” he replied

What is your definition of races? If you define it a certain way, maybe that's a valid statement. There is obviously still disagreement....Scientists always disagree! A lot of the problem is terminology. I'm not even sure what race means, people use it in many different ways.(Gitschier, 2005)

Racial classification is a modern phenomenon dating back to the 15th century when Portuguese and Spanish sailors encountered sub-saharan Africans and referred to them as Negro (the color black). Literature from earlier Roman and Greek eras is noticeably lacking in racial references. Instead people were often described by their tribal origin or by their status as freemen or slaves.

Research published in July 2008 concludes that there is no race. A Scientific American article entitled "Traces of a Distant Past" by Gary Stix has the most interesting quote:

Genetic literacy will let a term like "Asian" or "Chinese" be replaced by more subtle classifications based on the differences in ancestral genetic makeup found in recent genome-wide scans, such as the distinction between China's southern and northern Han groups. "There is no race."Quintana-Murci says

Cultural and ethnic differences could affect nurture, not nature.

If more studies are to be done, it should be to include women, who have a difference genetically, and are also different in terms of sexual expression. I believe the article calls it fluidity in sexulaity.

That concept is also mentioned in another article:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=20080420-000003&page=5

The biggest gap in the science of homosexuality concerns lesbians: Much less research has been done on them than on men. That's because women's sexuality seems to be more complicated and fluid—women are much more likely to report fantasizing about both sexes, or to change how they report their sexual orientation over time—which makes it harder to study. "Maybe we're measuring sexual orientation totally wrong in women," says Mustanski. Rahman and Wilson suggest that lesbianism might result from "masculinizing" genes that, when not present to excess, make a woman a more aggressively protective and thus successful mother—just as feminizing genes might make a man a more caring father.<<

[uppityperson]

153. What? This research is only true for white people? Did you miss the bit about other races?

" from sheep to fruit flies"

[JackBeck]

178. For all of the above responses:

1) People of color are historically underrepresented, if not entirely left out of most research studies for a variety of reasons that are too varied to mention here.

2) There are slight genetic variations between races, but even more so among a shared race. For example, when treating Hepatitis C, race is one of the factors in determining whether or not someone will successfully respond to treatment. There was a controversy a few years back when a research protocol was designed that ignored examining treatment outcomes in African Americans, since it appears they don't respond as well to the HCV treatment.

3) If research is conducted that is inclusive of all races, and it is shown that genetic variances between races doesn't affect the genetic expression of homosexuality, than that actually strengthens the argument that homosexuality is an immutable human quality deeply rooted in genetics.

Like I said, I'll withhold my support until I can be reassured that all races have participated in these research studies.

[kirby]

16. It might be a choice...

Maybe for a very very few people. But overall 99% I think is genetic.

[cboy4]

29. It might be a choice? What, do these folks decide it would

be kinda cool to join a group of minorities who are persecuted?

Can you elaborate why the, albeit a "very very few people" think it would be/is cool to choose to be gay?

I'm simply trying to understand why you think there are people who choose to be outcasts and subsequent candidates for discrimination.

[Zhade]

31. No one can choose to have a physiological attraction.

No, it's never a choice.

[LostinVA]

45. It is never a choice -- good grief

[Kalyke]

17. Knowing the depression, the fear of rejection, the fear of violence...

I have absolutely no "choice" but to consider homosexuality an inborn trait.

Other than a handful of martyrs, no one is going to "choose" to be ostracized, maimed or killed as a result of their sexual preference.

It's silly to think otherwise.

And I can't wait for the day homosexuals can join in recognized unions nationwide. Sanctity of marriage, my ass. Gays have been marrying in some parts of this country and all over the world and my marriage hasn't been threatened one iota.

Love is better than hate.

[readmoreoften]

18. It's not a choice. But if it were I'd still choose to be gay because if I wasn't

I'd lose sexual interest in the greatest female on the planet and my marriage would break up.

[caraher]

19. It probably mostly is not a choice, but so what if it is?

I think it concedes WAY too much even to argue this with people. Choice or not, where is the compelling reason for anyone to discriminate against people with different sexual orientation?

Freedom and equal rights should not be contingent on the results of the latest biological research.

[flvegan]

20. Anybody that thinks being gay is a choice is too stupid to even talk to.

I'll continue to do it, but that's just a fact.

[msongs]

21. ask people "when did you decide to be heterosexual - time day & year please" nt

[eridani]

22. There is a sense in which it is a choice

No, not actual sexual orientation, but living as a gay person. Those with gay orientations have the option of completely renouncing sex and love in their lives. A comparatively small number of "ex-gays" actually do this.

So if you don't renounce sex and love, you "choose" to be gay. The real issue is why anyong has a right to make that demand of other people as a condition of being treated as a someone with basic citizenship rights.

[Deja Q]

54. You're in the ball park, but the home run is a bit more fundamental.

I already said it and alluded to it when responding to another, but the choice is in how we act on feelings.

An existential concept, it's no different how one chooses to enact on sexuality as it does their career choices, spending habits, and so on.

Of course, stark reality is boring and nobody can really attack it because there's no way to win, so qualifying the argument is the choice most people make when discussing these threads. :D (I'm hardly immune either, but you're one of the very few who can actually think outside the box. And therefore an instant asset.)

[bean fidhleir]

57. You're comparing sexuality to spending habits and career choices?!?

You can't be serious, so I must have misunderstood and you meant something completely different, right?

[mondo joe]

62. Your post reveals a gross ignorance of the fundamental nature of sexuality in the human.

The only question is whether your ignorance is willful or not.

[uppityperson]

154. Do you mean how you act, what you do, rather than who you are?

You seem to be comparing what you might do (what type sex you like, top, bottom, side) and how you spend your money. Tell me you aren't comparing sexual orientation with career choice. Please.

[Lil Missy]

23. As a gay woman, ya know what really bugs me about these studies about gay being a "choice"?

It's because studies like this inherently suggest that there must be some kind of an "excuse", or "reason" for being gay, otherwise it is not acceptable. Bottom line being, it's okay if you can't "help it", but we know you wouldn't be "that way" by choice.

My feeling is, who the hell should care if one "chooses" to be gay, if that is the case? Why is not that okay too? Why does it need to be considered an anomaly, or some kind of an abnormal affliction that must be studied to understand?

[cboy4]

34. Oh Lord, there's a HUGE problem with whether someone

"chooses" to be gay.

I can't believe as a gay person, you don't understand, but I'll break it down for you.

I'm trying not to be smug, but it's extraordinarily east to understand.

One of the prime reasons anti-gay advocates fight against equal LGBT human rights is they argue the protections we're seeking are not necessary because it's a chosen lifestyle and we can simply be straight!!

As if anyone in their right mind would choose a life of ridicule, discrimination, abandonment from family, etc.

The studies continue because the doubt continues that homosexuality is a choice.

Period.

[Lil Missy]

37. Well cboy, I understand what you are saying, but I think you entirely missed my point.

Of course none of us would choose a life of ridicule, discrimination, abandonment from family, etc.

I wasted most of my adult life in the closet, and too ashamed to reveal myself honestly because of the expectation of society that I could somehow "fix" myself, and could somehow "choose" not to feel the way I did.

What I am trying to say, and hopefully in a respectful manner, is that, why can't it also be okay for someone to "choose" being gay, or with a same sex partner? It's not an option for me, but I am just trying to raise it to another level.

Why can't it also be okay for someone to "choose" to be gay, or in a same sex relationship? Why should that even matter to anyone?

That's all I am trying to say. And why it so rubs me the wrong way that there must be studies about what is so "wrong" with gay people and like it has to be figured out for some reason.

[bluedawg12]

97. Good question: why should anyone's sexuality matter to another?

Frankly, there is no good reason.

But it does matter, witness for example the ever present anti-gay attitudes in society.

The "defense of marriage from gays", keeping gays from the military, the idea that "gays are destroying the cultural and moral fabric of our nation" and so much more that the haters spew.

The reason it is signficant to point out that sexual attraction and love are innate and not just some "life style" choice is to deny that argument.

I suppose one could argue, that if someone "chose" a priori, to be "gay" they either aren't gay to start with, or were gay to start with.

One is a fake choice the other is not a choice at all.

BTW- I can not chose to be straight, despite all of the pressure in society to the contrary.

[Eryemil]

42. It IS irrelevant. Our worth as human beings should not be based on choices that affect NO ONE...

... else but ourselves. Whether people choose to be gay or not is not important. Curious, interesting but NOT IMPORTANT.

If someone said that they honestly feel that they chose to be attracted to people of the same sex would that mean they are not entitled to the same rights as the rest of the populace?

Religion is a choice, religious people are still a protected class in the US.

[yardwork]

65. I agree. Check out post #63 in this thread. Now somebody is talking about curing us!

No, no, no. There is nothing wrong with me just the way I am. I don't want to be cured. I don't want to be genetically altered. I just want the unfair laws to be eliminated.

[Lil Missy]

147. post #63 has been deleted, so I can only imagine.

I don't want to be "cured" either. I lurves the wimmins too much!! :bounce:

[gollygee]

66. Unfortunately, people who are discriminated against end up losing either way

If it's a choice, then choose otherwise, or be sent to "camps" to get "cured".

If it isn't a choice and it's genetic, then find out which gene and come up with a "cure".

Society is set up so the dominant group wins and the minority group loses, no matter what.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

69. You make a great point

I've never understood the debate here, because when dealing with the reich-wing nutjobs they make it a Catch-22.

"If it's a choice, you are a pervert, if you were born that way you are defective."

I say the issue does not even need to be addressed.

[Silent3]

122. Exactly!

Now it's fine with me if someone does this kind of research -- I think the more we know about human nature, the better -- but yes, choice/not a choice shouldn't really matter when it comes to how we treat each other.

[lightningandsnow]

143. I agree with this 100%.

:hi:

[WarbirdForObama]

24. Well, it's a Choice

In as much as a Baby Chooses to be Born.

Geez.

People need to quit with the Nature vs Nurture argument, it accomplishes nothing and makes Mother Nature seem skitzo.

Let people be who they are, love who they love, and leave them alone about it.

[Prophet 451]

25. the gay "lifestyle"

I'm bisexual so I don't fully understand the gay lifestyle. From observation though, the gay lifestyle seems to consist of going to work, trying to find someone to love and be loved by, paying bills and the occasional evening out. In other words, much the same as anyone else's lifestyle. Only with worse music.

*ducks*

[AntiFascist]

38. That's exactly what the Religious Right doesn't want...

they don't want gay people to appear normal and well-adjusted. They prefer the old stereotype of overly flamboyant gay men living in ghettos, addicted to drugs and alcohol, and suffering from diseases.

[LeftyMom]

27. It's irritating that we need so many studies to back up people's actual experience.

If you want to know if orientation is innate, just ask. Jeez people, it's not that complicated.

[Recursion]

30. "It's the things you don't choose that make you who you are"

At least according to Casey Affleck.

I find the whole argument stupid. If someone is averse to homosexuals, it doesn't matter whether that is a choice or not. I'm averse to people predisposed to violence, and that has several genetic components.

My point is, nobody who's against you now will stop being against you once it's proven that we're born the way we are.

[Zhade]

32. Is he gay? I loved him in Drowning Mona.

NT!

[Recursion]

35. It's the first line of "Gone Baby Gone"

The point being (possibly a good point) that the things we don't choose (ethnicity, neighborhood, family) most make us who we are.

[tavalon]

33. I know from personal desire that gay is not a choice, well, at least bi isn't

I would very much like to be bisexual. Alas, I am not. I've tried to be bisexual and hurt a couple of people and that mortifies me. If they could "train" gay out of people, there would be hope that I could "train" myself to be bisexual, but they can't and I can't.

Of course sexual orientation is inborn. anyone who thinks otherwise isn't actually thinking.

[cboy4]

36. How does one try to be bisexual?

It sounds like mind programming from the fundies.

And it's reckless, in my opinion.

You've admitted you've hurt a couple, praying away the gay in a sense.

And that's not right.

[tavalon]

39. That's what I'm saying

I tried because I wanted to but it didn't work that way. I'm not trying anymore, haven't for quite a long time.

[Behind the Aegis]

40. And if a choice?

So what?

I think it is great they are making breakthroughs in science, but this not be one of them.

[Toasterlad]

43. Could We Please Lay Off the "It Doesn't Matter" Bullshit?

It absolutely DOES matter that it's not a choice. It matters because there are millions of asshats out there basing their entire argument on denying equal rights to gays on the bullshit assertion that we "choose" this "lifestyle". The easiest way to undercut this argument is to prove that it is NOT a choice. Whether or not is shouldn't MATTER is irrelevant and counter-productive. It is NOT a choice, and anyone who insinuates it is by saying "It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not" is HURTING the cause of equal rights, and should shut up.

[LostinVA]

46. You saved me from wriitng this -- thank you

I can't get how people can't see that it DOES matter.

[gollygee]

48. It shouldn't matter

but it probably does matter to a good portion of the just over 50% of people who voted for Proposal 8, therefore politically it does matter regardless of whether it should.

[Fleshdancer]

73. to add to your argument...

We still live in a world where being gay can cost you all of your rights and freedom depending on where you live. In some places, it can cost you your life. All of this is due to the ignorant belief that being gay is a choice and a sin.

It matters.

[bluedawg12]

87. Exactly!

[Burma Jones]

86. Just because it doesn't matter to ME

Doesn't mean it doesn't matter.......

[noonwitch]

96. How about "it shouldn't matter"

Because it really shouldn't matter to anyone but the individual gay person and those who are part of his or her life.

[Warren DeMontague]

125. Smart- telling people who are on your side about equal rights to "shut up". Good call.

No, it shouldn't matter. And that is a perfectly legitimate tack to take, argument-wise, while also pointing out that no, it's not a choice, TYVM.

Know why? Here, I'll spell it out for you.

No, it's not a choice. No, I know it's not a choice. Saying it shouldn't -SHOULDN'T- matter whether it's a choice or not is not apologia for fundies insisting it IS a choice.

But limiting your argument to "It's not a choice" and insisting that everyone do the same is a bad tactic. For several reasons. One, first off, say some day in the future- I'm not saying this would ever happen in our reality, because yes, I know IT'S NOT A CHOICE.. but say some scientific study comes out that says it IS a choice. And the entire cause for equal rights has been based on this idea that GLBT citizens deserve equal rights because it is not a choice, and ONLY because it's not a choice do GLBT citizens deserve equal rights...


then what?

How about adding to the rhetorical repotoire this line of reasoning: Know what? whether or not it's a choice doesn't make any fucking difference, because consenting adults should be able to live their own lives with equal full rights, regardless of how other citizens may think they should live.

Wait a minute- it's "easier" to make the case that it's not a choice? Easier than what? Saying "no, it's not a choice, but even if it was it still wouldn't matter in terms of citizens deserving equal rights"? That's something like 15 extra words, and it doesn't limit itself to the Far right fundies' -the people who are the ones with the most invested in this "argument"- playing field.

[Toasterlad]

140. I'm Not Concerned With Fraudulent Data From Bizarro World. I'm Concerned With Reality.

If my argument were "It's absolutely, 100%, guaranteed not a choice, but just on the teeny-tiny, infinitesimal chance it actually is, it shouldn't matter", I'd be fine with this bullshit about "it shouldn't matter". However, that is NOT my argument, because that is not the TRUTH.

BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE. And people who insist on leaving the door open for the fundies by diluting the issue with "it shouldn't matter because even if people choose to do immoral, abominable things with their bodies, that's their right" are WORKING AGAINST equal rights.

We are not dealing with rational people who understand that everyone has rights. We are dealing with religious lunatics who believe that everyone who doesn't believe what they believe is going to burn in a lake of fire forever. Your logical "it shouldn't matter" means nothing to them, and it weakens any case we could legally make for equal rights. Capitulating on "choice" means more comparisons to polygamy and bestiality and incest.

IT HURTS THE CAUSE OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL TO IMPLY THAT BEING GAY IS A CHOICE.

IF YOUR ARGUMENT FOR EQUAL RIGHTS IS THAT "IT SHOULDN'T MATTER", YOU ARE IMPLYING IT IS A CHOICE.

Yes, it really is that simple.

[Warren DeMontague]

145. Eh. Whatever. Turn someone who is really, truly, 100% on your side into an "enemy"

Yup, you got my number, pal. My goal here is to subtly insinuate that it's a choice- like I give a shit- because I'm saying that it shouldn't matter - people's rights shouldn't matter - whether or not something like that is a choice.

I think I said, maybe five times in my post, in all caps, that I KNOW IT IS NOT A CHOICE.

I still also think it shouldn't matter.

And no, I'm not going to shut up about it.

You say the irrational fundies won't respond to logic. Fine, you're probably right about that. But they also don't believe in science. They're also an increasingly marginalized minority. So fuck 'em. Tell them to get a fucking life, and to stop trying to tell other consenting adults what to do with theirs.

So answer my question- let's not talk about being gay, because we all know that it is NOT A CHOICE- let's find something that is (one would think) unarguably a choice. Say, eating pasta. Do you think a case can be made that people who eat pasta shouldn't have equal rights, because they choose to eat pasta instead of being genetically predisposed to do it? :shrug:

Oh. And where the FUCK did I say anything about how gay people do "immoral, abominable things with their bodies"? Jesus fucking Christ, Jack. Project much?

[Toasterlad]

150. I'm Not Trying To Turn You Into Anything. It's Your...Choice.

All I'm telling you is that it is counter-productive to present the argument that it doesn't matter whether "gay" is a choice.

I can and do tell the fundies "fuck 'em", but they still seem to get their way an awful lot. So, it behooves me, as someone who doesn't have the same rights they do, to listen to what they're saying and create an argument against it. If the fundies go to court with the argument that being gay is not a choice, but people can choose not to act upon it, and therefore don't deserve rights, they lose. If they go to court and argue that people choose to be gay, and therefore they don't deserve special rights based on behavioral practices, they win. Don't believe me? The evidence is all around you in the form of unmarried gay people.

Eating pizza is not specifically mentioned in the book of Leviticus as an abomination, unless maybe you're putting shrimp on it. Remember Leviticus? The first stop on the Gays Are Evil Express? That's what I was referring to with the "immoral" and "abominable" comments. If you're going to fight this fight, you'd better be familiar with the talking points.

Bottom line: If you really care about gay equality, you'll listen to what gay people are telling you and cool it with the "it shouldn't matter" rhetoric. You're welcome to post a poll on the subject in the GLBT forum: I can assure you that the vast majority will tell you that it DOES matter that it's a choice. You can either listen to what gay people have to say, and be part of the solution, or you can assume that we silly queers don't know our own business, and keep on your road to bringing us equality despite ourselves. Just don't expect a lot of accolades from us; we know that your way is the much LONGER road.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. I think your attitude is extremely presumptuous. I have gay people in my immediate family.

I don't need to post a poll in the GLBT forum to know you don't speak for all Gays and Lesbians, as much as you may fancy yourself to.

And you insist on putting words in my mouth- find where I have ever said anything about "silly queers".....


cue Jeopardy music...


...While you're at it, find where I've ever been anything except 100% behind full marriage equality. Furthermore, your previous post sure as shit didn't sound like it was quoting Leviticus, which I also am more than familiar with, TYVM; again, you took my argument and threw a lot of bullshit, nasty invective into it. Not appreciated. Not at all.

I've said my peace, and I stand by my original point. You can froth n' stew about it, but you REALLY don't know diddly shit about me if you think that telling me to "shut up" about something is a way to get me to do anything except the exact opposite. (!!!)

Honestly, I think what you're really itching for is a fight with someone who DOES believe that "being gay is a choice", and since no one here will ante up to buying that line of bullshit, you think you've found the next best thing.

I'll say it again. BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE. But the question of "choice" shouldn't matter- it doesn't matter- when you're talking about equal rights. Equal rights are not dependent on whether or not something like sexual orientation is a 'choice' ANY MORE than equal rights are dependent upon what the gay-and-shrimp-hating authors of Leviticus had to say. Every citizen deserves equal rights, and what a consenting adult does with his or her own body is his or her own damn business. Period.

[Toasterlad]

176. Oh Sweetie, I Don't Presume To Speak For All Gay People.

Just the majority.

Have you bothered to ask the "gay people in your immediate family" if they think it matters that gay is not a choice? You might try that.

I'm not looking for a fight; I can see plenty from right where I'm sittin', thank you. I would hardly call trying to correct yet ANOTHER well-meaning straight person who thinks they know gay issues better than I do (there sure have been a plethora of those lately!) a fight. I save the good stuff for the professional assholes.

My advice to you is this: try listening to the gay people instead of preaching to them. It might make you a better person. It will definitely make you a better ally.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. No, see, the difference here is, I'm not telling YOU how to make your arguments.

I'm not preaching to anyone, certainly not someone brimming with pearls of wisdom on how I could become a "better person".

cough.

I just don't appreciate being told to "shut up". Like I said. I've said my peace. And yes, just like me, the gay people in my family think that fundies should butt the hell out of other peoples' personal lives, they think that how consenting adults choose to live their lives and what they choose to do with their own bodies is their own business REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THEY DO IS A "CHOICE".

In fact, they suspect that the focus on this by some members of the gay community has more to do with those individuals' reconciling themselves with their own personal religious upbringing than any sort of coherent logical argument for equal rights in larger secular society.

Just sayin'.

[Toasterlad]

181. No, Nor SHOULD You Be Telling Me How To Argue Gay Issues, Straight Person.

You probably wanna sit down and row instead of trying to steer the boat. We've been at this a lot longer than you have, and have a much more vested interest. Might be nice of you to actually LISTEN to how we want the argument framed instead of TELLING us how you're going to do it. I promise you that the next time you have rights being taken away, rights that I'll still have, I will let YOU do ALL the talking.

Meanwhile, of COURSE the "gay people in your family" think the fundies should butt out of people's personal lives. Everyone but the fundies think the fundies should butt out of people's personal lives. And everyone but the fundies think that people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies. I'm asking you if you asked the "gay people in your family" if they are cool with you running around telling people it doesn't matter if being gay is a choice, because it shouldn't matter. Sadly, even if you did, "they" probably love you, and don't want to call you a counter-productive loudmouth. Fortunately, I have no such issues.

Sorry you don't like being told to shut up. I can sort of relate, as I've been told to shut up my entire life, by pretty much every straight person I've ever met. Guess what? We're the new gay. We're not gonna play it your way anymore. We're pretty much done with straighty telling us how things are gonna go. Don't like it? TS. You can either declare how being talked to so rudely by an uppity gay has caused you to abandon gay causes forever (there's been a lot of THAT lately, too - and if anyone thinks we're missing such "allies", think again), or you can sit down, SHUT UP, and let us tell you how we're going to fight for our rights.

Allies ASK how they can help. They don't DICTATE how they will help.

[Warren DeMontague]

188. GLBT CITIZENS DESERVE FULL EQUALITY, INCLUDING MARRIAGE EQUALITY. PERIOD.

There's a third choice, Jack. Here it is.

WHETHER OR NOT FUNDIES BELIEVE IT IS A "CHOICE" SHOULDN'T MATTER.

DOESN'T MATTER.

THE ISSUE OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND "CHOICE" HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT EVERYONE DESERVES EQUAL RIGHTS. PERIOD.


Oh, no! What are you going to do now? :o

See, that's how I'm going to frame my argument, and if you think the bug in your britches or your personal attitude has even the remotest possibility of changing my deeply held beliefs on these issues (yeah! The mean gay guy pissed me off, so now all of a sudden I'm against equal rights! :eyes:)....well, again, I think you overestimate the importance of your own personal stance on the matter.

And that's what it is. Your personal stance. You want to make your argument your way, I absolutely am going to continue to make my arguments the way I consider them most ethically consistent as well as effective.

Don't like it? TS, yourself.

It's nice that you're so certain of what is inside everyone else's heads that you not only presume to think for me, you presume to think for the gay members of my family. Certainly, they agree with you, someone they've never met, and are lying to my face, because... well, you see all, Kreskin.

[Toasterlad]

192. Well, You Sure Told Me

Yes, you've shown that no matter how much I and the overwhelming majority of gay people here say that it absolutely DOES matter that it's not a choice, and that to suggest otherwise hurts our chances for equal rights, you're by god gonna say what you want to say, because NOBODY is going to tell you to shut up.

Yes, even though your position is wrong-headed and indefensible, even though the majority are telling you you're heading in the wrong direction and fighting the wrong battle, you're going to stay the course, because your pride is more important than anything.

You know, you remind me of a president I used to know. Come to think of it, HE was a bit of a douche, too.

Okay, I've had my fun with you. It's clear that, because of the personal offense you took at my initially general admonition for the "it doesn't matter" people to shut up, you're now dug in deep, and will continue to spout your counter-productive argument despite what I or anyone else in this thread have been saying about why it DOES matter. Yes, you've got a right to your voice, and no one's going to by god stop you from screeching. Therefore, I see little point in continuing this farce.

I'm out. Enjoy the last word with your big, powerful, counter-productive voice.

[Warren DeMontague]

194. Know what, dude? I used to live right up the hill from the Castro. I know the Gay Community is not

monolithic. Maybe you live in a place where, for whatever reason, the message has been drilled in that it's very, very important for everyone to be on the exact same page, all the time, with rigidly enforced ideological discipline and strictly monitored talking points, or god knows what sort of hell will break loose.... but I can tell you from years of experience that diverse communities of different people- who don't even agree 100% on absolutely every detail of every issue- CAN still work together to accomplish common goals.

No shit.

I'm sure if you asked "the majority" of GLBT members of DU whether equal rights for GLBT citizens should be dependent on whether or not fundamentalists believe sexual orientation is a "choice" (whatever the fuck that means) I'm sure the overwhelming majority would say no. From the get-go, here, you've tried to conflate the fundies who argue that being gay is some sort of sin-laden choice with the people, like myself, who think the entire 'choice' argument is an irrelevant dumb fucking waste of time, because the core issue is equal rights, and equal rights alone... (the point of view is not 'indefensible'. I've defended it repeatedly, actually)

...when anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would acknowledge that those points of view are as different as night and day. That arguing "it shouldn't matter" or "it doesn't matter" is NOT somehow holding the door open for, or apologizing for, the pinheads who say "it's a choice".

Hmmmm. Conflation, like conflating Iraq and 9-11. Gee, whiz, that reminds me of President Douche, too.

As much as you claim to represent "the majority" of GLBT citizens, really, in this thread it's been pretty much you. Believe it or not, there are people in this thread and elsewhere who agree with my perspective on this, too.

And you know what? You're Gay. That doesn't mean you're infallible. I know African Americans who are far right Republicans. Ben Stein is Jewish, but pointing out that he's full of shit on "Intelligent Design" doesn't make one an anti-semite. You can be Gay, and still be wrong. It's possible.

'Night.

[hunter]

196. If it's "not a choice" for one person, that's enough.

Libertarianism is not going to appeal to the anti-gay marriage crowd -- these folks follow a greater authority, imaginary or not. They don't "get it" if the kid they raised by all their rules is gay until the realization smacks them in the face that for their kid, at least, gay is not a choice. Some of these parents begin to understand and achieve some kind of acceptance of homosexuality, some don't.

My parents wouldn't have blinked if I was gay, whether it was a choice or not. Even my grandma would have looked around for cute guys for me to go out with. But that's not the way it is with most families. They worry "where did we go wrong???" This science gives them an out, and for the most part it is correct. It's not hard to ask gay people if their sexual orientation was a "choice" or not. For most of them it wasn't. Any science is simply a further confirmation of the fact.

Getting a few anti-gay marriage people to understand this creates an opportunity for them to accept homosexuality within the context of their own faith, and they are the ones who will bring acceptance of gay marriage to their communities.

[Warren DeMontague]

197. I'm not saying don't argue it's not a choice. Although, you confirm my suspicion that this is really

for a lot of people, about reconciling being GLBT with their personal faith or insular communities, and not making the argument for equal legal rights in larger secular society...

of course; make the point, loudly and repeatedly, that it's not a choice.

(Actually, what you said was, it's not a choice for "most" Gays and Lesbians.. :hide: I'll let you field the fallout from that comment)

But that doesn't mean (spooky bugaboos of "Libertarianism" :o notwithstanding) that a rational, plausible case can't also be made that- you know what? All citizens deserve equal rights, period, endofgoddamnstory, and debates about "choice" don't matter one fucking whit to that central question.

And no one has bothered to respond to my point in post #148, about making "but it's not a choice" the ONLY acceptable argument to make in the context of equal rights for all citizens.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4564932&mesg_id=4570363

[hunter]

198. Oh bother. Let's just get rid of marriage.

Whenever a kid is born, write down the parent's names on the birth certificate, and get on with it.

Who needs marriage? All we need to do is protect the kids. It's all about child support.

:sarcasm:

I read your post #148 and it's quite amazing how you convolute Catholicism with young earth creationism.

It's no bother to me if you are hostile toward religion and the existing institutions of marriage -- lots of people have very good reason for such hostility -- but most modern religions do accept science, some readily, others somewhat grudgingly.

The drooling, noisy, right wingers who blindly consume whatever their leaders are spewing are a minority.

I'll happily take the fallout for my "most" comment. Human sexuality is a diverse thing. There are many couples, gay and straight, whose relationships are not particularly focused upon the shape of their partner's sexual apparatus. There are people who don't think much about sex at all, and would rather not share their body, bed, or house with anyone else. There are people who are strongly driven by their sex drives. There are people whose sex doesn't match the body they were born with.

That's what the science is, it's messy.

I believe it's really silly and damaging to demand the philosophical purity of thought that it's ONLY a matter of equal rights, end of story, the heavens are a place of perfect crystal spheres. That's exactly the same sort of thinking behind the jaw dropping stupid of "Marriage is between a man and a woman," like God burned that into our brains and you will, with absolute certainty, go to hell if you deny it.

[Warren DeMontague]

199. No, the Catholics have already made up their minds, at least according to the Vatican.

They have acknowledged that Gay orientation is not a choice- but have progressed on to define the "sin" as acting on the orientation. So I guess all that work convincing those religious folks that "it's not a choice" was pretty fucking pointless.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what the point of your rant is, except to sound angry and put a lot of words into my mouth that I didn't say (funny how that seems to happen in that thread), and somehow conflate my arguments with those of right-wingers (and that, too) because, I don't know, I say them out loud... and so do they? :shrug:

Yes, it's a matter of equal rights. When we're talking about the law and the United States Government and a little thing known as the Establishment Clause, that's the bottom line. Religious fetishes and concerns may be important to believers and their family members/friends, but I think dragging them into the arena of writing laws for everyone causes a whole laundry list of problems that everyone should be well familiar with.

But beyond that, I haven't told anyone how to frame their arguments- I just originally objected to being told to "shut up" with mine, remember?

Let's do away with marriage? Who said that? I don't see why merely extending equal marriage rights -civil marriage rights, which is NOT the same thing as religious marriage under some specific denomination (see Catholics and divorce)- to GLBT citizens is such a difficult thing for so many to deal with.

[hunter]

200. I know quite enough about Catholicism, thank you, but that's not my point.

The people who voted for Proposition 8 don't understand your theory of civil rights.

To them the United States is a democracy under God, blessed by God, and that's why this is a great country because they can vote for things like proposition 8.

Apparently the only thing that clears them of this notion, according to the polls, is education.

The scientific reality on the ground is that "gay is not a choice" and this is contrary to the tradition of many religions.

Your "equal rights" are a lofty ideal that has never been achieved in the United States because the majority has a very simplistic view that the ideals of the United States are "Under God."

If someone tells them that God says "Marriage is between a man and a woman" then that's all there is to it. The secular ideals of the United States are irrelevant. But except for the religious extremists, most people do accommodate scientific reality when it's staring them in the face or kicking them in the butt.

[Warren DeMontague]

201. So, fine. Continue to tell those people that it's not a choice.

And I will continue to say that it shouldn't fucking matter one whit, everyone deserves equal rights, period.

And while Prop. 8 was a shame, the obvious trend is towards acceptance of full equality. In most Northern California counties, the vote was 2-1 against. Among young people, the vote was against. 10 years ago the numbers would have been even worse. 10 years ago, the "debate" was almost entirely around civil unions. Now it's marriage.

As it was, it was close.

In time, I suspect the crazy, whackjob, "libertarian" (ewwww! that word! :yoiks:) theories I support....

about how consenting adults should be left the fuck alone to live their lives and control their own bodies...

will become supported by an overwhelming, un-ignorable majority of Americans, no matter their faith or lack thereof--- if they aren't already.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. Also, so, let's fast forward to the moment you present the fundies- who think that the Earth

is only 6,000 years old, who think there were dinosaurs on "Noah's Ark"- with the irrefutable proof that it is NOT A CHOICE, and they suddenly decide science is o.k. and accept it... know what will happen then?

They will say what, in essence, the Catholic Church says- that being gay may not be a choice, but acting on gay impulses is. And then they will use that as a basis to argue against equal rights.

Really, I think you're giving these people too much credence by ceding the parameters of the argument to them.

[tom_paine]

47. My God, it's quite obviously Common Sense that being gay is NOT a choice.

It is simple and easy to explain.

Ask a heterosexual guy if we could start spontaneously liking dudes if we wanted to.

Of course, any hetero guy (or 99.9% of us, I would guess) is going to say such a thing is impossible.

The reply our homosexual friends should give, which makes it so clear and obvious even the dullest of dullards can comprehend it, "Then why would you expect I can do that, when just like you, I 'woke up one day' at puberty and started being attracted to guys just like you 'woke up one day' at puberty and started being attracted to girls?

"Maybe it's just the same as it is for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals as to how a person just can't turn things back and start liking something different, sexually speaking than puberty imprinted on you.

Then maybe add this, "I'll switch after you show me such a thing is possible, which I don't believe. Make yourself "choose" to start being attracted to guy, then I'll believe it's possible and start working on trying to change and be attracted to girls.

"But you have to show me it can be done, first."

(obviously ths argument works just as well for intolerant women, too, just switch genders in the phrasing)

Let 'em try and answer THAT!

[terrya]

50. Being gay is not a choice.

Period.

[Deja Q]

52. Yes, but enacting on feelings is a choice. And enacting on a choice does impact others around us.

:hi:

[Deja Q]

51. It's not that people have the feelings, it's ENACTING ON THE CHOICE.

Regardless of persuasion, there is ALWAYS a choice.

Incidentally, it was a GLBT relative of mine who said the same thing. Try attacking me without involving her.

[mondo joe]

60. Like being hungry isn't a choice but eating is "enacting" on the choice.

:eyes:

[gollygee]

61. It's no more a choice to act on those feelings than for me to act on my feelings

I've been married for 10 years, I have one child, and I am expecting another. I did not have a choice to be straight, but I suppose I did have some level of choice in getting married to my husband and having sex with him.

Do you think that "enacting on the choice" is different or worse for someone who is gay than it is for me?

[Fleshdancer]

74. being gay and having sex are two separate arguments though

Straight people fall in love without having sex all the time. This doesn't mean they haven't enacted on the choice of being straight, it just means they didn't have sex. The same concept can be applied to gay people.

[bluedawg12]

85. Why should gay's deny and suppress their attractions and sexuality

No one is asking str8 people to deny their sexulaity at all times, with all people, forever.

The same concept can be applied to straight people and would be laughed at.

[gollygee]

123. It would be considered cruel if it were suggested for straight people

To have to live isolated lives without that kind of companionship forever. An intimate relationship is not just about sex. I would be unhappy without my husband, and I doubt anyone would expect me to have not gotten together with him when we fell for each other. No one would suggest that of anyone straight. But for some reason some people don't consider it cruel to expect that of gay people, as if being gay changes emotional needs.

[Fleshdancer]

149. I don't think gay people should

I hope my post didn't imply that I thought gay people should deny or suppress their attractions and sexuality.

[Political Tiger]

111. Being gay is NOT about sex.

It's about love. Period.

[cboy4]

93. You're a notorious drive-by poster who never responds to

anyone who challenges your points of view.

So why should I or anyone else waste my time?

Right. We shouldn't.

[Political Tiger]

110. Not enacting on your feelings is NOT an option! n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

114. you mean like someone can be a stupid by birth, but has a choice whether or not

to post their stupidity publicly?

i guess i am catching on to that....

[Greyhound]

139. LOL!

:rofl:

[Toasterlad]

151. This Cat Has Claws!

:applause:

[uppityperson]

157. Exactly! Thank you.

[uppityperson]

156. I'm hetero not because I fuck every man I see. My orientation is who I am and I don't have a CHOICE

CHOICE is about chosing an act, not who you are.

[Lil Missy]

177. Sometimes I feel like I gotta poop. Since I have a CHOICE, I take a dump.

Honestly, that is so obnoxious and offensive on several levels. I don't know where to start.

..kaythxbai

[Zhade]

184. How does one "enact" on something? You're using the word completely wrong.

NT!

[Deja Q]

53. I'm a bisexual male who practices monogamy and relationship building.

Which is also why I'm single, but I've heard all the stereotypes and insults, so I won't be fazed by whatever pettiness people throw my way in this thread.

And, yes, I do 'prefer women' if I were to take a choice.

[bean fidhleir]

75. I'm going to guess that women might not prefer you, though.

Lez, bi, or het, butch or femme, we generally like our SOs to have more sensitivity to nuance than you seem willing to have.

[mondo joe]

102. "Bisexual" doesn't mean no relationships with persons of either gender.

Just FYI.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

115. how do you practice monogamy and relationship building without a partner or a relationship? nt

[DainBramaged]

55. Wait, wasn't it the fault of the Village People?????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Hepburn]

56. For anyone who is straight and who thinks being gay is a choice...

...answer this question for me:

"When did YOU decide to be straight?"

Get it yet? Being gay, straight, bi, whatever...it is NOT a choice. It just is what it is!

:hi:

[Orsino]

59. I guess I can't entirely rule out "choice" as a factor...

...whatever it means in this context, but calling orientation "a choice" seems like oversimplification to the point of trivialization. And I only hear it from people who display absolutely no knowledge of or empathy with GLBT people.

I strongly suspect that orientation can be mutable, but I've never seen any evidence of someone's having "chosen" it.

[hendo]

70. as soon as homosexuality is defined as a genetic trait

it is more likely that it will be defined as a disease that needs to be treated.

This is a mixed blessing at best.

[bluedawg12]

84. Likely it will be mulitple genes.

If defined as a "disease" it will be as a political POV and agenda and not a scientific one.

As same sex relaionship are found through out the animal kingdom.

.....

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=...

Right now, there is no one all-inclusive solution to the Darwinian mystery of why homosexuality survives, and no grand unified theory of how it arises in a given individual. Homosexuality seems to arise as a result of various perturbations in the flow from genes to hormones to brains to behavior—as the common end point of multiple biological paths, all of which seem to survive as side effects of various traits that help heterosexuals pass along their genes.

..........

[Fleshdancer]

71. I can't believe people still debate this

how many decades must we point to the animal kingdom, history, failed attempts at conversion, personal testimony, and the simple logic that straight people don't choose their sexual orientation before we can stop debating this? It's as annoying as debating global warming and evolution and yet here we are.


:banghead:

[Forkboy]

77. K&R

:kick:

[AlphaCentauri]

81. I knew a sexually abused person who tough he was gay

He was abuse when he was 7 years by his uncle and he used to think he was gay sadly he die of an overdose.
I've never though he was gay cause I know many gay people and it is generic not a choice or imposition.

[mondo joe]

82. Not to nitpick a sad story, but he might have been gay.

Gay kids get abused too.

[Zhade]

185. I did. Same age.

NT!

[qb]

83. The 'gay choice' issue is just code for

"Get the fuck back in the closet... you're upsetting my bigoted sensibilities."
Anyone with half a brain can't possibly believe sexual orientation is actually a choice.

[bluedawg12]

88. Partial list of mammals that display homosexual behavior

List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior (from wikipedia)

Selected mammals from the full list
African Elephant
Brown Bear
Brown Rat
Buffalo
Caribou
Cat (domestic)
Cheetah
Common Dolphin
Common Marmoset
Common Raccoon
Dog (domestic)
European Bison
Human
Bonobos

Here are two links where we have discussed some of these ideas on GLBT in case anyone is interested in some more articles and links:
.........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=89744&mesg_id=89744

GLBT - Because it is Natural.
............

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=95593&mesg_id=95593

Study:Homosexuality associated genes: surprising advantages for homosexuals' family ?

[shimmergal]

193. Not posting on the main topic here, but

animal studies wouldn't prove anything about genetic determinants unless they followed the same individuals long-term and found each respective individual always (or almost always) engaged in either straight or gay sex.

Are there such studies? Maybe there are. But I've never seen nor heard of any.

[Burma Jones]

89. I used to do volunteer work at the Studio Theatre in DC, some 12 years ago

One of my duties was to maintain Donor Lists.

One of the donor organizations was a Gay anti-abortion group. I wondered out loud why there would be specifically a Gay Anti-Abortion Group. One of my fellow workers then explained to me that there was a concern that if Homosexuality was a genetic trait, and that it could be identified in the womb, then parents would abort their Gay Children. This was 12 years ago....After a quick Google Search, I find the concern is still there.

[bluedawg12]

90. It's the gay penguin agenda. Those damn lefty penguins!

;-)


Two New York Central Park Zoo's male chinstrap penguins, similar to those pictured, became internationally known when they coupled and later were given an egg that needed hatching and care, which they successfully did

[Fearless]

105. Aww... so cute!

:loveya:

[Alter Ego]

92. Since when are there folks here

who still think it's a choice?

Why yes, I will choose a lifestyle that will most likely lead to anger, hatred, and possibly violence towards me and my loved ones! This is truly a brilliant idea with no chance of failure! HURF DURF

No one chooses it--because if it was a choice, no one would choose it.

[Fearless]

104. You'd be suprised...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. Actually, what that evidence shows is that *for some people* it's not a choice.

The scientific evidence that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation is pretty overwhelming by now. Evidence of correlation between sexual orientiation and genetically-determined things like handedness is further evidence of that.

What it *isn't* evidence of is that sexual orientation is not a choice for some people - it clearly is; a not trivial fraction (whether it's a majority or a minority I don't know; I suspect it's a large minority) of those who identify as gay, and a much-smaller-as-fraction-but-possibly-larger-as-an-absolute-number fraction of those who identify as straight, are latent bisexuals for whom sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

Is the difference between "sexual orientation is not a matter of choice" (with an implicit "for anyone") and "sexual orientation is not a matter of choice for some people" an important one?

I think the answer is "not immensely, but somewhat, because one statement is false (and hence easy-to-refute), and the other is true".

[bluedawg12]

99. "Either or" statments vs. "and" statements.

"...those who identify as straight, are latent bisexuals for whom sexual orientation is a matter of choice."

A choice is an "either or" proposition.

For your latent bi-sexuals example, it is not an "either or" proposition, it is an "and" proposition.

For example:

One is attracted to either the same sex or the opposite sex. That is an either or proposition.

One is attracted to both males and females, not is not an "either or" proposition, it is an "and" proposition.

The latter is not making any choice about sexual attraction in general, as they are, de facto, attracted to both.

Beyond that, I suppose we all select mates, so there is a choice among a specific cohort of either same sex, opposite sex, or both sexes.

[cboy4]

109. Sexuality is not a choice for bisexuals.......They are wired in

a way that they are sexually attracted to members of their sex AND the opposite sex.

Just like you're wired to be attracted to your opposite sex.

Bisexuals don't just sit down and say, I think I'm going to be attracted to both men and women.

It's like saying someone chooses to be left-handed.

[mojowork_n]

127. Maybe it's the "third axis" at work, then,

that still provides a few surprises from time to time.

The 3rd axis being defined as the general degree of arousal, or intensity (or absence) of attraction -- gay or straight, or gay AND straight (bi-sexual.)

Because some of the attracted-to-gay-AND-straight folks definitely seem to swing more in one direction for a while, and then back the other way. As opposed to randomly hooking up in no discernable pattern, like a well-shuffled deck of cards that's equally liable to come up 'black,' or 'red.'

Or who knows, maybe there's a fourth or fifth axis, as well as other indices of attraction.

......I guess I'm just saying that I have no argument, at all, with people who tell me that they were born "100%" one way or the other, but I don't mind a little mystery, some je ne sais quoi, or even a gob-smacked right-cross to the chin, now and again, when it comes to the "Rules of Attraction."

As in, Surprise -- Who Knew I Would Be Falling In Love With You?????

That's not to say I've ever fallen in love with a person who had a "Y" chromosome, nor do I ever expect to. (One penis -- my own -- inside the erogenous zone, is plenty enough for me.) But I'm still a little uncomfortable with "explanations" -- gay or straight, or gay AND straight -- that are too simple. If it were that cut-and-dried, we might as well all be insects, or drone sex-bots, in identical, differently colored, jumpsuits; ruled solely by instincts and hormones.

Human beings, whether it makes any sense or not, want the best of both worlds. We want to think we're hopelessly, powerfully, inevitably drawn to the object of our affections, but we also like to think that our actions, our own suddenly-enhanced-to-the-nth-degree sensibilities and appetite for life, have had something to do with it, too. (If that makes any sense.)

[Zhade]

187. THANK you. As a pansexual, this fits me as well.

NT!

[TrogL]

128. You're treating this as a zero-sum game

My understanding of the research is that there is no such thing as "gay" or "straight". Everybody is bisexual, finding themselves somewhere on the continuum (and this can change) between gay and straight.

Hence, you find manly men transfixed by the behemoths of World Wide Wrestling and girly girls obsessed with Heidi Klum.

Middle-of-the-road bisexuals are relatively rare but at least we're honest about it.

[Zhade]

186. It's not a choice for anyone.

NT!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

189. That's simply not true.

Hell, I *know* people who have chosen to go from one at one time in their lives to another later.

Who am I meant to believe, you or my lying eyes?

In a world which we know contains bisexuals, it's simply absurd to suggest that there are not some latently bisexual people who choose to be only straight or only gay.

There is very strong evidence that for many people sexual orientation is not a choice, but there is even stronger evidence - proof positive, in fact - that for others it is.

In an issue as heavily politicised as this one, making obviously-false statements like "it is not a choice for anyone" is a very poor tactic, because it's so easy to refute, and it poisons the well for "for many people, it is not a choice".

[alfredo]

100. Proof it is not a choice: Richard Simmons.

BTW, when not on stage he is a very calm, serious businessman. I met him when working as a vendor at a seminar he was hosting. He impressed me. When that spotlight is on him, he's in character. That persona has served him well in reaching a specific audience. A baffoon, an embarassment, Maybe, but as long as he can use his character to get morbidly obese people to get up and shake their booty, then it doesn't matter what some think. He truly believes he is saving lives, and that is the measure of the man.

[Cronus Protagonist]

118. He should recommend the same stomach stapling operation he had on himself

Perhaps then he would have a little more credibility, but then again, he's only selling hope, not results, so perhaps it doesn't matter.

[alfredo]

142. I met him early in his career. I can't vouch for his later behavior.

[Fearless]

101. Umm... Duh.

That's all. Duh.

[ourbluenation]

112. If it's a choice then straights choose to be straight too, right??? n/t

[mudesi]

113. Why do they need to research this?

Ask a gay person if they chose to be attracted to members of the same sex.

Ask a straight person if they chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex.

There. That took, what, 2 seconds?

[bluedawg12]

119. Because the right wing does not accept logic and the lies continue

and they keep hammering it.

They try to make a distinction between same sex desires and the false argument that people do not have to act on it. Therefore, the intrinsic nature of being gay does not matter, what matters is that people deny a basic, very basic human drive, the desire to express love and sexuality.

They try to use the notion that it is a lifestyle choice, and thereby cut the supportive arguments in law about a protected minority.

They use the argument that it is a choice and that people can be de-programmed not to make that choice.

They also use the argument, a contradiction, one hand they claim it is a mental illness and then argue that gays "chose" mental illness.

The research is apparently needed, because like with many things originating from right wing thinking, it is impervious to logic, reason and science. To whit, evolution, global climate change.

But of all of their sh*t faced lies, the most dangerous is:
.........
>>"Because they have chosen to live this "unnatural" lifestyle, so the argument goes, they do not deserve any kind of "special" protection under the law, and in fact should be openly discriminated against and otherwise made to suffer as long as they continue on this chosen path."

At the heart of this battle is the question: what makes a person homosexual, is it a choice or is one born that way? Because the Religious Right's argument (1) depends so heavily on homosexuality being a wrong choice, and one that should therefore not be protected under the law, lesbian and gay rights activist have counter argued that homosexuality is a function of biology, that we do not choose to be gay but rather are "chosen," as the joke goes. If sexuality is innate, the way race and sex are innate, then homosexuals should be afforded the same kinds of protection against discrimination that women and racial minorities have, at least in theory. But so far this argument has been hard to "prove," because of the nature of biological and genetic testing, and thus the battle continues, with the Religious Right and gay rights activists going head to head on anti- gay ballot initiatives across the country.<<

http://www.lesbian.org/amy/essays/queer-choice.html
.........

[gollygee]

124. Because there is no better use for medical research money

:sarcasm:

[bluedawg12]

130. Studying human behavior or genetics is a waste if it involves gays?

[gollygee]

132. No

The assumption seems to be that if being gay can be proven to not be a choice, that it's OK to give gay people rights. Which also assumes that if it is a choice or if it can't be proven, that it is OK to deny rights. It seems to me like the purpose of this study is that. That is a waste. Just give the rights.

[bluedawg12]

133. It's not an assumption, it is a fact used to deny gays legal protection

however, I agree that anti-gay politics is a waste of time, energy, resources and phony bullsh*t trumped up as the "cultural wars" by a depleted and ideologically bankrupt ( and nearly financially bankrupt) right wing.

On the other hand, do not expect gays to sit back and keep taking this sh*t, either, we need to respond as long as they swill the slop.

[gollygee]

134. I absolutely expect you to keep responding

If my rights were being denied, I'd be raising holy hell too. There are shameful things happening in this country.

[bluedawg12]

136. Yes! Look at how much time we lost on climate change deniers

or the disinformation about the science of evolution, or the formation of the universe.

The right wing excells at confusing people, spreading disinformation and also fomenting a distrust in science in order to keep supersitions alive for their purpose.

Palin was sure she saw human foot prints in a picture of dinosaur tracks. Holy sh*t! Teaching kids gibberish.

At least some good comes out of basic research, one may start off looking for why gay men are left handed and in the process may identify a gene for something else.

[bluedawg12]

131. Why waste a good dupe? Here is an interesting study

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=20080420-000003&page=1

Finding the Switch
Homosexuality may persist because the associated genes convey surprising advantages on homosexuals' family members.

By: Robert Kunzig

[slackmaster]

117. I am quite sure that I could not possibly choose to become sexually aroused by a man

Or not to be attracted to women. I've always assumed it was the same way (vice-versa) for gay men and lesbians.

When someone throws out the "Being homosexual is a choice" thing, I respond with "When did you decide to be heterosexual?"

[bluedawg12]

121. You are exactly right on!

[Rebubula]

120. Choice or not..

WHO FUCKING CARES?

Why does anyone care about what other consenting adults do behind closed doors (or on video)?

I know it is not a choice anymore that being right handed is a choice. It is what it is.

Seriously, fuck anyone that has a problem with anyone else's lifestyle (again..assuming consenting adults).

[Toasterlad]

141. All the People Standing In the Way of My Rights Care.

The people that have a problem with my "lifestyle" are usually the same people who call it a lifestyle. Which it is not.

I appreciate that you're on my side, and that you want to help, but it MATTERS. A LOT.

[Mike 03]

126. If anyone needs research to know that sexual orientation is not a choice,

I pity them. They must never have experienced sexual desire.

You just know. I knew in kindergarten I was fascinated by the opposite sex. I didn't know what those feelings meant until much later, but you just know. Some men feel that way about men; women feel that way about women.

Anyone who is in doubt, remember your own experience.

It's very sad to me that this is 2008 and there are still some human beings that can't extrapolate their own experience to others and see what we have in common rather than rejoice in stereotypes that divide us. It is so unnecessary and so regressive.

[cboy4]

146. Exactly. You just know.

!!

[Taverner]

135. Every gay person I ever knew said...

And I've known quite a few - Republican, Communist, Anarchist, Dadaist, Expressionist and simply just plain folks - but the one thread, other than being gay, was that they "knew" they were gay as soon as they could know anything of that nature.

To me, that tells me its not a choice.

[VPStoltz]

137. What, of course, is ironic...

is that the people who seem to have a problem with it CHOOSE to be Christian or whatever. Religion is definitely not an inborn trait. They could choose to be forgiving and loving and understand, but they CHOOSE not to.

[DutchLiberal]

138. People who still think that, are idiots and have no place at this forum.

[fascisthunter]

144. some people don't get it, because they DON'T Want To...

it's their choice to be beligerent. It's not your choice to be gay...

[qwlauren35]

152. I'll put myself out there AGAIN.

Living with a same sex partner when you have equal feelings for men and women is a choice that some people make.

Living with an opposite sex partner when you have more feelings for the same sex is a choice that some people make.

Although I don't believe for even a second that one chooses one's orientation, I absolutely believe that everyone makes a decision about who they want to spend their time with, and lots of people spend their time with people who aren't their first choice for a variety of reasons.

As such, living with a same sex partner is a choice.


One's true "orientation" is something that many people don't casually reveal. I am convinced that there are billions of bisexual people on the planet who aren't going to go around telling anybody. Most human societies are set up in favor of opposite sex partnerships because such partnerships produce offspring, and children need adult protection. But there are SO MANY other arrangements, and subarrangements. I don't think anyone knows what level of lesbianism goes on in predominantly female environments, because the women probably know better than to discuss it. However, I am convinced that polygamy covertly encourages it or at least makes it possible. Similarly, same sex male partnerships often occur in male only environments, from the military to prisons.

Is it orientation? Or lifestyle? Or does lifestyle trump orientation? Perhaps in some cases. I am not completely sure that many of the men who engage in casual (instead of loving) sexual activity in the military or prisons would consider themselves gay, or even bisexual. Are they bisexual? Or simply horny? And when women turn to women, is it always because they prefer women? Or simply because they are too damaged to deal with men? Are they actually have a same sex orientation? Or are they bisexual? Or are they simply sexual beings who may feel a sexual orientation toward men, but prefer the sense of security that may come with a female companion?


EVERYTHING I see suggests that there are gray areas. And what I hear is that gay activists don't want to discuss these gray zones because it doesn't further their goals.

I do not see gay and straight as "either/or". The lack of discussion of bisexuality strikes me as a problem that needs to be resolved before a truly meaningful dialogue can occur.

Otherwise, straight people will continue to see "non-straight" people as "gay", instead of "gay" and "bisexual", and the distinction between orientation and lifestyle will not make ANY SENSE.

When straight relatives are confronted with a man who ends a 30 year marriage, in which he has produced 10 children, and announces that he's "GAY", it simply does not make any sense. How could he have had sex with his wife if he was gay?

When straight relatives are confronted with a woman who has been repeatedly abused by her husband, and finally leaves him, and chooses a woman to live with instead, if she a lesbian? Or is she bisexual?

I am absolutely convinced that the existence of and behaviors of bisexuals leave many straight people extremely confused. And it absolutely infuriates me that there is so little effort to help straight people understand the difference between the behaviors they see and the underlying innate orientation of those involved.

[AntiFascist]

175. Maybe it is important to understand that there are 2 basic types of gay people...

gay people who would never consider being with the opposite sex (3%) and gay people with a definite preference for the same sex, but who also are occaisionally attracted to, or been involved in the past with, the opposite sex (perhaps as high as 7%). I would consider myself to be in the first group, but I've known plenty of people in the second group.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

155. I believe people can choose to ACT gay but can't choose to BE gay

I honestly don't believe that people can choose whether or not to be attracted to a member of the same or opposite sex (whatever the case may be) but I believe that people CAN choose whether or not to act on their feelings or to repress them and that those choices should be fully protected as long as whatever happens involves consenting adults.

Unfortunately, anti-gay crusaders continue to persist in their belief that being gay is some kind of sickness and/or "sin" that can (and should) be "cured" or at least severely repressed (lest other people catch "the gay") despite the seemingly obvious fact (well, obvious to everybody else BUT them I suppose) that it seems like a particularly strange choice for somebody to CHOOSE to BE gay in light of the horrible way gays and lesbians are (still) treated in American society not to mention the fact that, despite all of their "gay recruitment" fears, being gay is simply NOT going to appeal to somebody who just plainly isn't gay. I just don't see people as being able to change their CORE sexual orientation as though they were simply flipping a switch.

What is most troubling (and frustrating) is that for all of their supposed concern about preserving marriages and advancing pro-family initiatives, anti-gay crusaders apparently seem to think that having (true) gays and lesbians living in "sham marriages"- with unsuspecting spouses whom they may care about but are not particularly attracted to- is morally and socially superior to gays and lesbians being able to make the choice to live with people whom they are genuinely attracted to and can truly and fully share themselves with. However, of course, I've learned not to expect much in the way of logic and consistency from these folks. In fact, I think that pressuring people into what are essentially "sham marriages" is ultimately FAR more damaging to the institution of marriage than the supposed "threat" to posed by gay marriages.

[uppityperson]

158. ARGH! k&r

[Brooklyns_Finest]

159. I am probably going to piss people off, but.....

I think womens sexuality is much different than men. While I don't think homosexuality is a choice for men (guys like the gender that gives them erections), but for women, I think it is much more fluid. I have known a handful of girls who were in serious lesbian relationships in the past and years later they are married with children and don't even want to talk about what they were doing in college. In fact, I think all women are bisexual. I know my ex girlfriend was (even though she claimed she wasn't).

Call me a troll, ignorant, phobic, what have you, this is just my opinion. With that said, I am not trying to stop anyone from living their lives.

[gollygee]

160. I'm not bisexual

So there's one that shoots down your theory. Although you seem to have declared yourself a greater authority on women than we women are, so I don't expect you'll believe me.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

161. We are all a product of our life experiences

I can only speak about what I have seen first hand.

[gollygee]

162. We don't all assume we're experts on something that has nothing to do with us. n/t

[Brooklyns_Finest]

163. I could be wrong

I never said I was an expert on anything, but we all have our opinions. All I stated was my opinion on sexuality.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

169. There is no "could"

You're fucking wrong.

And in the wrong place.

[uppityperson]

171. My guess is

not fucking much of anything.

And is in the wrong place.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

167. Yeah...I just chose to be a lesbian

I could easily switch to dudes.

As for your post:

EPIC. FAIL.

[Erin Elizabeth]

168. Sigh.

No, all women are NOT bisexual. SOME women are bisexual. SOME men are bisexual. I do think it's more SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE for women to be bi than for men to be bi.

I know women who are very very very straight.

[uppityperson]

170. Had an acquaintance with this opinion also. Got po'd @ me when I said I was only hetero.

"but ALL women are bi, they just chose which they'd like, you need to try it, you are limiting yourself, etc".

Sorry, but no, all women are not bisexual. And when you reply it is based on the "handful of girls", based on your experience, you are wrong. Saying "all women" are something based on "a handful of girls" is just really poor logic.

Oh yes. That acquaintance? Finally figured out he wanted a threesome with me and his female friend so was putting pressure on us both to "accept our bisexuality". No friend.

[mudesi]

172. I wouldn't say they're bisexual

But generally, are much less homophobic when it comes to experimentation with their sexuality.

[bluedawg12]

180. I am probably going to piss people off, but..... I think guys that write

threads like this, who think:

"homosexuality is a choice for men"

because well, ya' know, "(guys like the gender that gives them erections)" ;-)

And, I have known a handful of men who were in serious straight relationships in the past and years later they are married to a man. :9

In fact, I think all men are bisexual. I know your ex girlfriend thought so. :rofl:

:sarcasm:

Enjoy having others project their sh*t onto you?

[LostinVA]

191. I wish I could rec your post

[LostinVA]

190. Why is this stupid post still here?

[shimmergal]

195. Interesting observations, but

I think it's more a matter of males' sexuality being more "hard-wired" than is the case for females. For examples, many more men _have_ to have their favorite scenario, or fetish in order to respond at all.

There are probably evolutionary reasons for this.

OTOH, there's a factor of being heterosexual but homosocial. With our marriage patterns, what's a girl to do who wants to have sex with a man, but enjoys the company of women more the rest of the time?

[Erin Elizabeth]

165. I'm hoping bisexuals are next in line for

understanding and acceptance. I've gotten shit even from people who should understand. Sorry, didn't mean to inject that here. It's most certainly not a choice, I've never thought so.

[ismnotwasm]

166. It's not a choice

It's never been a choice. It's never going to be a choice. There have always been homosexuals, thank God, or goodness or the diversity of evolution, take your pick. There are always going to be Gays.

When I was a young girl, I lived on the street. I was surrounded, among other people, by gay young men, most of whom are now dead, (Mid 70's, right before AIDS) and nearly all who had been kicked out or otherwise rejected from their homes, their families. All had terrible emotional scars, many had terrible physical ones.

No one "chooses" that. No one.

[sohndrsmith]

173. Okay, I'm probably going to get flack for not reading all the replies here before I post, but

Edit: (my subject read, "pro baby" when I meant "probably" - it could have been quite confusing. < g > )

I just have to say:

People don't choose things unless there is some benefit in some way. This is not a choice. My father was gay way back when... when it was not even spoken of.

He desperately wanted a family and had one. He thought it would "help", perhaps... even cure him. I don't know... I think he was tortured by his real feelings, as he tried (and succeeded) in being the normal nuclear family - and we were that family (with many quirks) until it didn't work.

My dad's gayness was not the reason for any pain we had in our family, and his being a good father was not predicated on his sexuality.