A high school student in Atlanta recently wrote a column in the school newspaper, criticizing homosexuals and even going to the extent of calling them “reproductive errors.”
For the record, I believe homosexuality is a choice; otherwise, I believe science would have discovered a common trait among gay people by now.
I understand that my belief is offensive to homosexuals. I’m not really sure why. Paul tried to explain it to me one time, but I don’t think I ever really grasped the concept.
He also tried to answer my other big question about homosexuals: If gay men like men, why do some often dress like women and act feminine? But, again, I’m not really sure of his answer.
(Disclaimer: I apologize beforehand if I’m offending anyone. It is not my attention.)
The student, Thomas Benjamin, wrote: “I realize biology commits many reproductive errors. Homosexuality can be one of them.”
Do you think homosexuality is a choice or a biological error or neither? Do you have a problem with the school paper publishing the article? Do you have a problem with me?
Do you feel that you have a choice in your feelings of attraction towards women? Could you make yourself attracted to a man?
In terms of should the school publish the paper: is this a public school? Then sure, publish it. We have freedom of speech in this country (at least for now). You can speak your mind to your heart’s content. That’s doesn’t make you correct, intelligent, or even worth listening to. I would hope that the school paper would publish any differing views as well. (Please note, you don’t have freedom of speech on elbuzzard.com, because I own it, and I get to choose what I will allow.)
Biology doesn’t commit errors. It’s a science, a field of study. I assume the student means nature, since biology is a human invention. Even then, nature is incapable of creating errors. It just creates. The student should probably read On the Origin of Species, and make an attempt to grasp its concepts. There are no errors in nature, just differences.
Kent, biology–because it is a human invention–commits errors all the time. I’m sure that if we tried, we could find all sorts of examples of how “biology” incorrectly explained one thing or another. I seem to remember scientists had all sorts of crazy ideas about left-handedness at one time (they probably still do), to pick up on a recent discussion here.
Also, I realize that there seems to be something innate that drives people to believe that somehow their genetic material is SO much better than everyone else’s (probably the same thing that pushes us to make babies), but this kid’s got to have some pretty big balls to call someone else a “reproductive error.” How superior he must be. If karma does indeed exist, this guy will have a whole passel of gay children.
I don’t think so Dennis. High school kids all think they have it all figured out. I remember in high school wondering how America had not worked out its racial problems. It seemed so simple to me. I also thought it was cool to wear bandanas in my hair. I was a real dipshit back then.
Anyway, my point is that I’m sure this kid will realize it’s a big big world one day, and wish that he had never written that article. Or he wont, and then he will have the gay kids.
In summation, high schoolers are dopes. Sweet, idealistsic dopes.
And bandanas are cool.
To your point Dave, I think gays – and I’m sure Paul will back me up on this – dress like women and act feminine because they are trying to get more men to make the “gay choice” and join their ranks. Thus, they try to trick men into thinking they are women.
Gay people don’t reproduce, they recruit.*
Dennis you are correct. Biology is full of errors, but I don’t think that’s what the kid meant.
*disclaimer due to the limits of plain text: notice my tongue in my cheek
Thats how we get toaster ovens for our stylish lofts, duh!
And to address the point of “science would have discovered a common trait by now”… you said yourself that biology has incorrectly explained things in the past. Consider this:
1) There is a genetic background for being gay, and geneticists have not discovered it yet.
2) There is no genetic background for being gay, and therefore there is nothing for geneticists to find.
3) There is a genetic background for being gay, and geneticists have missed it and are off trying to explain left handedness.
…all are equally tenable explanations.
Regarding homosexuality to be a choice, I suppose it could be…but to use a tired old saw, who would choose to put themselves in a place where they can be disowned, beaten, and looked down upon by teenagers who want something nice to put on their application to a university. I certainly didn’t wake up one day and think that was a great trade off in exchange for man-booty. 🙂
I don’t think he meant that either. And, I got what you were saying too. I’ve always been a little sensitive about something similar: when people interchange the words “history” and the “past.” Like biology and nature (or whatever), they really are two different things.
Considering David’s comment about cross-dressing: I used to totally conflate sexuality with gender. Leah had a professor in college who was transgender (MTF) and also a lesbian. For the life of me, I could not figure out why someone would “switch” when they “had all the right tools”–phrases I actually used. For political and social reasons, sexuality, transvestitism, and transgenderism are often lumped together, but they really have very little to do with each other. In fact, I think most cross dressers are straight-identified men.
Also, I believe that geneticists have discovered a few genetic markers for homosexuality. But given how little we actually know about DNA and genetics in general (not to mention the political climate that influences scientific research and often determines its funding), I think it’s presumptuous to think that something definitive would have been found “by now.”
Jeff says things so much better than me.
I’m going to work, but I will think over a suitable answer to this while I blend up big pink frothy frozen drinks with whipped cream and syrup on top that sound like a silly girls name for big butch masculine men who act all tough but order silly girl sounding drinks and ask for extra syrup please.
Recruit them!
Kent … I absolutely believe that I had a choice of whether or not be attracted to women. I’ve been hit on by guys before and chose not to pursue.
Why do homosexuals get offended when people call it a choice?
Why did you choose not to pursue?
That I can’t answer David. I’m trying to step outside and figure it out. The first thing that comes to mind is that choice almost makes it sound like a fad, or an immature thing that we’d grow out of if we just took the time | stopped being so selfish for not giving our moms grandchildren | met the right woman | hadn’t been molested by nasty uncle Harry as a kid.
Not to get too depressing but both explanations lead to IMO dangerous areas – if its a choice, then can’t we see its a wrong choice and need to straighten up as it were AND if its biological, then maybe its a birth defect and with proper planning we can work on a day when no child will be gay.
If the government spent more money researching this instead of exploring stupid space then we would probably have an answer to this intriguing, yet complicated question. Here’s another question: how come all you straight guys continuously reference homosexuals when make fun of your male friends? I never understood that.
Mainly its because all my male friends are gay.
In spite whatever Koster says, there is nothing stupid about space exploration.
Choosing to pursue someone hitting on you is not the same as choosing your sexuality. That’s being a slut, something both sides have.
The only choice I’ve made in my life regarding to being gay is whether or not I wanted to be happy. Society places some much negative stigma on homosexuals that its no one wonder why gays might have a hard time coming out – and to an outsider it can be misconstrued as making a life choice. But simply its them finally accepting themselves regardless of anyone else’s beliefs. I was lucky enough to have family and friends accept me so I didn’t have to go through that.
I find it rather insulting when I hear “the choice” argument because unless you are gay how on earth could you possibly know. On matters that deal with my life, I have a better understanding of it than anyone else. It’s as if you see me as subordinate unable to analyze my own being so you have to do it for me.
I hate to go into retread here, but what possible incentive is there for making that choice? It’s not like choosing to be an alcoholic. There is some inital reward there: Alcohol enjoyment. (I love to get drunk).
The only inital incentive for gaying it up is that you get to love someone that feels right for you – which would never be the case, if that wasn’t in you naturally.
Also – I am not comparing homosexuals to alcoholics in any way, other than to say both decisions could bring a great deal of difficulty to someone’s life.
When those guys hit on you, Dave, did you have to ask yourself “Could I love a man?”
If so, what was the answer?
Firstly, let’s address men who dress up as women. Gay men dress up as women, Gay women dress up as men, Straight men dress up in their wives panties and straight women wear their husband’s underwear. These are either called ‘sexual fetishes’ ( see : sexual fetishes, wikipedia. Here’s a good quote for you Dave from said article, ” With the Kinsey report and the sexual revolution, scientists began to part from the idea of fetishism being an illness or a maladjusted form of sexual behaviour. ” —sound familiar? )…or they are forms of artistic entertainment that have been going on since the times of prehistoric shamans cross dressing and taking on the form of another. That being said…everyone “acts up” with clothing or mannerisms. Not just the gays. I have seen you many a time put on a very feminine attitude for fun, wear makeup, or pride yourself over a stuffed animal collection. Everyone does it…and it’s mostly been the straights in Hollywood cross dressing more than anyone else.
Now.
I cannot stress enough how being gay is not a choice. Your argument on homosexuality being a choice because science has not been able to find a genetic trait will hold in your own mind only because the funding and the time has not been offered to make a solid study of this enigma. The government is in no way about to spend time and money researching your dilemma due to their obvious feelings about homosexuality based on faith and society. The last thing the government wants to prove is that homosexuality is NOT a choice. We can’t even get out of the financial loop to actually research and stop AIDS because all fundraising is spent on bringing money to the community clinics so that they can stay open in order to help the millions of people (straight and gay) who have AIDS. The government (due to AIDS’ homosexual stigma and the government’s financial medical control ) won’t even fund the proper amount of AIDS research, a disease which is slowly wiping out billions of people across the globe. What makes you think they’re concerned with proving that gay people are or aren’t born this way? Again, that’s the last thing they want to prove, and until someone has the time and the funding to shine light on this topic….you will just have to remain one who can be easily compared to those who believed the earth was flat.
This kid wrote that “I realize biology commits many reproductive errors. Homosexuality can be one of them.” He’s basically saying that homosexuality is the same as being born with a sixth toe, or a third arm. Kudos for the kid in the imagination department, but his argument went on to argue that gays should not be married…and this was one of the main points of the article. He was trying to write an article on “Homosexuality: Beyond the Bible.” (this is quoted), and wanted to bring in science on the subject instead of the Jesus man.
I say this here and now…the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or not in this country, in my opinion, is based on religious concern and fear, as was Thomas Benjamin’s article.
I CHOOSE not to have sex with women because I am NOT ATTRACTED TO THEM. Dave, you CHOOSE not to pursue sex with these ‘said’ men who hit on you because you are NOT ATTRACTED TO THEM. (I apologize for the caps). The magic moment and core of the situation here is because we are both ‘not attracted.’ When I chose to have sex with a girl, I did it because I am the kind of person who is adventurous in life and I have a desire to experiment with things that are foreign to my natural tastes. I chose to have sex with a girl for educational and entertaining reasons, but my personal tastes have always been towards men. Since I was in kindergarten, since the dawn of my existence, I can never once remember finding a girl sexually attractive to me in such a way as to ‘change’ me to the ‘right’ way. I would think that you would say the same thing to me about your lack of sexual relations with men, Dave. You could easily choose to have sex with a man if you cared to experiment, but you would most probably argue that it goes against your nature as a human…your biological makeup if you will. I, too, will hold this to my own situation.
It hurts me to see that this is such a debated topic when there are so many other important things to be helped through scientific funding. Of course I would want more than anything in the world to have scientific proof that homosexuality is indeed genetic, but all the work towards this outcome would be in vain to the homosexual community because we already know the answer to this question. This much needed scientific research needed to find out that homosexuality is a choice is for those of you in the world who must spend your time trying to prove something that goes against a faith that you were brought up in, a society that tells you that it is different, wrong, and unworthy of recognition, and an ignorance that will continue to plague you unless you honestly believe the only people who are truly capable of answering this question for you….the people who are being researched as lab cases instead of humans with natural feelings, justifiable yearnings, and honest emotions in their hearts.
ps. I miss you Dave.
Paul … you’re gay? Who knew?
So are you squared away on this topic, Dave? I think that pretty well settled it. I would just like to add that I actually came home tonight, and logged on, just to read Paul’s response. Thanks Dave, for giving us a topic that gave us so much fodder. Here’s what I like about you:
You are not afraid to ask questions like that.
You are a good person.
It’s impossible not to like you.
You hate gays.
The thing I love about Dave is that even after all this, he will still think that homosexuality is a choice.
Okay, I realize nothing really needs to be added to this conversation. However, I just want to suggest that the things in our lives that do not belong to the realm of choice are not exclusively those items to which we are genetically conscripted. I would argue our life experiences can equally determine who we unequivocally are. I guess what I am trying to say is that even if a gay gene or whatever is never found, that doesn’t mean gay people are making a choice.
I’d like to thank everyone for their input on my questions.
As many of you pointed out, science hasn’t discovered many things about the human make-up and likely hasn’t dedicated an ample amount of time on trying link homosexuals. That was one of the biggest things I realized through this discussion.
I thought Paul’s reasoning that fetishes are behind why homosexuals often cross-dress was pretty bogus. That is something I’m still confused about, but, like science, don’t have the time to spend trying to figure it out.
I also think Grant hates sluts, which is unfair.
Finally, while I often struggle with stereotypes, I believe my track record has clearly shown that I can like an individual no matter their sexuality, race or religion. Straight or gay, we are all sexual beings and that is common trait we all have.
Side note: I had my first rectal exam yesterday. It was uncomfortable as hell.
See?
You gotta love him!
I just wish the human race could move past sex, race and religion. Maybe we could live with each other without wanting to kill/suppress each other.
Who the hell cares if it’s a “choice” or “biology”. Both those terms are meaningless anyway. If I’m an asshole, is that because I choose to be an asshole, or because genetically I’m an asshole? Who cares? I’m still an asshole. Good grief.
asshole
just another classic example of nature vs. nurture. there are some who are attracted to dark colors and some who are attracted to bright and cheery colors. were they born that way? i guess so, but there was probably some minute factor that pushed them more one way than the other.
plus dave is the dumbest smart person i know.