If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Upworthy)   One simple question that can wipe out homophobia for good   (upworthy.com) divider line 106
    More: Cool, heterosexuality  
•       •       •

7755 clicks; posted to Video » on 10 May 2013 at 10:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-10 10:11:15 AM
It's valid.  But this question tactic has been around forever.  Panacea, it ain't.  Logic isn't always effective against willing ignorance or hate of "other".
 
2013-05-10 10:14:01 AM
I have used this tactic in the past, and it does usually leave them dumbfounded....


I did have one person respond with this little gem:

Me: "When did you choose to be straight?"
Them: "No no... gay is a choice, like hair colour... I didn't choose to have brown hair, but they chose to change their natural state... like dying someone's hair blue. It's unnatural".

Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation. So they would never have to choose to be straight, because at heart, all gay people are too. 

Sickening.

It's a shiatty evasion, but I assume anti-gay apologists will come up with similarly stupid sound-bytes in an attempt to defeat it. Maybe we should just start making villians in movies homophobic, and heroes gay... it will filter into the public counciousness pretty quick.
 
2013-05-10 10:16:25 AM

Nayman: Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation.


In general, isn't this true?
 
2013-05-10 10:18:24 AM
That question is stupid, homosexuality isn't a choice it's a mental illness
 
2013-05-10 10:20:14 AM
Yeah its pretty inescapable logic.

Unfortunately bigotry is informed by hate, not logic.
 
2013-05-10 10:21:47 AM
After the woman says that she believes it's a combination of nature/nurture, the interviewer asks her when she decide to be straight, as if what she said implies that it's a decision. It may feel good to say that people are born gay, because the thought is that it takes away the possibility of it being something that can be decided, and while many, or most, might have a genetic predisposition towards it, it ignores the complexity of all the actions and situations and thoughts and feelings that stew together in our consciousness and unconsciousness while we grow from infancy into adulthood. Acknowledging that the factors might be more than genetic does not mean that it is something that can be decided.
 
2013-05-10 10:23:30 AM

RussianPooper: After the woman says that she believes it's a combination of nature/nurture, the interviewer asks her when she decide to be straight, as if what she said implies that it's a decision. It may feel good to say that people are born gay, because the thought is that it takes away the possibility of it being something that can be decided, and while many, or most, might have a genetic predisposition towards it, it ignores the complexity of all the actions and situations and thoughts and feelings that stew together in our consciousness and unconsciousness while we grow from infancy into adulthood. Acknowledging that the factors might be more than genetic does not mean that it is something that can be decided.


Nor does it mean that homosexuality is invalid or wrong.
 
2013-05-10 10:23:32 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Nayman: Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation.

In general, isn't this true?


Completely. 3% of anything makes it a deviation from standard.
 
2013-05-10 10:24:04 AM
"What don't you but the whole WORLD in your anus, Super gay?"
 
2013-05-10 10:26:40 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Nayman: Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation.

In general, isn't this true?


Depends if you're speaking statistically or making a value judgement.
 
2013-05-10 10:27:50 AM

Nayman: I have used this tactic in the past, and it does usually leave them dumbfounded....


I did have one person respond with this little gem:

Me: "When did you choose to be straight?"
Them: "No no... gay is a choice, like hair colour... I didn't choose to have brown hair, but they chose to change their natural state... like dying someone's hair blue. It's unnatural".

Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation. So they would never have to choose to be straight, because at heart, all gay people are too. 

Sickening.

It's a shiatty evasion, but I assume anti-gay apologists will come up with similarly stupid sound-bytes in an attempt to defeat it. Maybe we should just start making villians in movies homophobic, and heroes gay... it will filter into the public counciousness pretty quick.


Lenny Bruce made a pretty good Lone Ranger as a hero.

/tell you what, give me that Indian over there
 
2013-05-10 10:29:13 AM
The other one I've used is when people think the act determines your identity.  Like, say, you're a guy and you got a handy from a dude.  That doesn't make you gay (although I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't make me raise my eyebrow a bit).  So the question becomes:  "Did you know you were straight before you lost your virginity?"
 
2013-05-10 10:29:25 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: RussianPooper: After the woman says that she believes it's a combination of nature/nurture, the interviewer asks her when she decide to be straight, as if what she said implies that it's a decision. It may feel good to say that people are born gay, because the thought is that it takes away the possibility of it being something that can be decided, and while many, or most, might have a genetic predisposition towards it, it ignores the complexity of all the actions and situations and thoughts and feelings that stew together in our consciousness and unconsciousness while we grow from infancy into adulthood. Acknowledging that the factors might be more than genetic does not mean that it is something that can be decided.

Nor does it mean that homosexuality is invalid or wrong.


That is up to society to decide. Just like some forms of obesity, gambling disorders, alcoholism, bestiality preferences, necrophilic preferences, even violent tendencies, etc., all have genetic pre-dispositions, it's ultimately up to society to decide what is/is not acceptable.
 
2013-05-10 10:32:06 AM

pkellmey: AverageAmericanGuy: RussianPooper: After the woman says that she believes it's a combination of nature/nurture, the interviewer asks her when she decide to be straight, as if what she said implies that it's a decision. It may feel good to say that people are born gay, because the thought is that it takes away the possibility of it being something that can be decided, and while many, or most, might have a genetic predisposition towards it, it ignores the complexity of all the actions and situations and thoughts and feelings that stew together in our consciousness and unconsciousness while we grow from infancy into adulthood. Acknowledging that the factors might be more than genetic does not mean that it is something that can be decided.

Nor does it mean that homosexuality is invalid or wrong.

That is up to society to decide. Just like some forms of obesity, gambling disorders, alcoholism, bestiality preferences, necrophilic preferences, even violent tendencies, etc., all have genetic pre-dispositions, it's ultimately up to society to decide what is/is not acceptable.


Yes, and we'd hope that in a modern, supposedly enlightened society such as ours that a deviation such as homosexuality would be deemed acceptable.
 
2013-05-10 10:33:14 AM

Fano: "What don't you but the whole WORLD in your anus, Super gay?"


Acidentally?
 
2013-05-10 10:38:25 AM

FloydA: Fano: "What don't you but the whole WORLD in your anus, Super gay?"

Acidentally?


The whole thing.
 
2013-05-10 10:38:33 AM
I believe that some people are born 100% straight, some are born 100% gay, but most have a natural predisposition somewhere in between.

Most people are a bit bi, leaning one way or the other, and there may be some choice, whether concsious or not, in embracing one particular lifestyle, the whole Kinsey Scale thing.

In the end though it shouldn't matter - whether you're born that way or choose an orientation, you should have the same rights as a homosexual couple as you do as a heterosexual couple.
 
2013-05-10 10:39:32 AM

pkellmey: AverageAmericanGuy: Nayman: Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation.

In general, isn't this true?

Completely. 3% of anything makes it a deviation from standard.


It's deviant to make more than $350K a year.
 
Ant
2013-05-10 10:39:49 AM
"

Diogenes: Logic isn't always effective against willing ignorance or hate of "other".


"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - Some Farker from long ago (I think)
 
2013-05-10 10:49:47 AM
I appreciate the logic but I don't appreciate the way the interviewer seems to be walking up to people and asking them the question straight away, without introduction or permission. Poor form.
 
2013-05-10 10:52:48 AM

Ant: "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - Some Farker from long ago (I think)


I dunno if you're quoting me, but it's something I've said often here...

I may also have stolen that from someone else.
 
2013-05-10 10:53:59 AM

Malacon: Ant: "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - Some Farker from long ago (I think)

I dunno if you're quoting me, but it's something I've said often here...

I may also have stolen that from someone else.


It's a paraphrase of Jonathan Swift.
 
2013-05-10 10:58:12 AM

Malacon: Ant: "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - Some Farker from long ago (I think)

I dunno if you're quoting me, but it's something I've said often here...

I may also have stolen that from someone else.



"Reasoning  will never make a man correct an ill opinion,  which by reasoning he never acquired..."

Jonathan Swift  Letter to a Young Clergyman(January 9, 1720)
 
2013-05-10 11:02:17 AM

TuteTibiImperes: I believe that some people are born 100% straight, some are born 100% gay, but most have a natural predisposition somewhere in between.

Most people are a bit bi, leaning one way or the other, and there may be some choice, whether concsious or not, in embracing one particular lifestyle, the whole Kinsey Scale thing.

In the end though it shouldn't matter - whether you're born that way or choose an orientation, you should have the same rights as a homosexual couple as you do as a heterosexual couple.


Logic?  In My Fark?  What am I supposed to do with this?

/believes pretty much the same thing
 
2013-05-10 11:03:04 AM
I think you could make an argument that society lets you act on your gayness or not and that part is a choice but that's about it.
 
2013-05-10 11:10:08 AM
Interesting concept, and personally I have no idea (not being a clinical psychologist or other sort of researcher) if it's a choice or not.  Instinct tells me it's not- simply because I can't remember NOT being straight.  And if I can't remember that, how could a gay person remember ever not being gay?  But is the inability to remember having made a choice equivalent to not having made one?  That's a tricky question.
 
2013-05-10 11:11:43 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Malacon: Ant: "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - Some Farker from long ago (I think)

I dunno if you're quoting me, but it's something I've said often here...

I may also have stolen that from someone else.

It's a paraphrase of Jonathan Swift.


Well...... Swift would have been a Farker
 
2013-05-10 11:14:05 AM

Diogenes: FloydA: Fano: "What don't you but the whole WORLD in your anus, Super gay?"

Acidentally?

The whole thing.




He put the whole world
Up his ass
He put the whole wide world
up his ass
He put the whole world
up his ass
He put the whole world up his ass!
 
2013-05-10 11:16:52 AM
I would also like to know WHO THE FARK CARES whether someone chooses or not? It's pretty clear, scientifically, that gay people don't choose, and that it's conditions in utero/epigenetics which determines sexual preference... but even if it were a choice... OH NOES! YOU WANT TO SLEEP WITH A DUDE?! EVIL!

The whole choice/nature thing is a sham. The fact is, as long as you have a consenting partner, and you aren't hurting anyone (too badly...) Then you are free to do whatever you please your own body. Stick whatever you want wherever you want... just be a good person.
 
2013-05-10 11:21:14 AM

Nayman: I have used this tactic in the past, and it does usually leave them dumbfounded....


I did have one person respond with this little gem:

Me: "When did you choose to be straight?"
Them: "No no... gay is a choice, like hair colour... I didn't choose to have brown hair, but they chose to change their natural state... like dying someone's hair blue. It's unnatural".

Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation. So they would never have to choose to be straight, because at heart, all gay people are too. 

Sickening.

It's a shiatty evasion, but I assume anti-gay apologists will come up with similarly stupid sound-bytes in an attempt to defeat it. Maybe we should just start making villians in movies homophobic, and heroes gay... it will filter into the public counciousness pretty quick.


My follow-up to that is usually to ask them if they ever considered making the choice to be gay.  When they vehemently insist they've never had a gay thought in their life, I ask them why think gays have those thoughts.  This usually brings them right back to either stumped altogether, or forced to declare it as a nature thing or a nurture thing.  Regardless of which it is, they usually have zero reasoning for why

Bonus: someone once told me it was nature that made gays want to be gay, but then later cited "its unnatural" for why "being gay should be illegal".  So of course I mentioned how plenty of stuff in nature is gay, but at this point they walked off in a huff and accused me, who hadn't felt it necessary to walk into a room of his coworkers and start making hateful declarations about the lifestyle choices of others, of being argumentative and refusing to let something go.

Ya, I'm the dick, when you came into a room that likely had a homosexual in it and started badmouthing them.  That is what bugs me the most about these people: they are so self-righteous about it that they think it appropriate to be insulting to their own coworkers and neighbors but get upset if people call them out. They think the people who merely defend their right to life their own lives how they want to without hurting anyone are the real bullies.

pkellmey: it's ultimately up to society to decide what is/is not acceptable.


It is up to society.  If society wanted to, we could make slavery legal in theory.  Note that many of the items in your list really are not apt comparisons to homosexuality at all (unless you have some of the most ignorant views about homosexuality I've ever seen).  Plus that is a sidestep to the real discussion that a free country ought to be having: not if it is gross, not if it's annoying, but whether in a country like ours we should be curtailing the freedom of another individual without being able to show harm or infringement on the rights of other people if we allow it.  

That is a question that our society has, when stated in less politically charged terms, responded to with a resounding no.  Granted, people have large enough blind spots that they could agree that "all men are created equal" and hold slaves, but I would be interested to see bigots flail around if that question was brought to bear before ever even mentioning homosexuality.

I imagine it would prime people on the fence to have less of a problem with homosexuality than they would without being first asked the question.  If so, what that would tell me is that a large number of people who might claim they are against homosexuality have never taken the time to think their views through far enough to even hold a real opinion.
 
2013-05-10 11:25:28 AM
Well I can see the confusion but I also see some of the points.

As a child born into the world, you are provided with a life template and that is only boy and girl can be together. From that child's perspective this is taught to them in fashion, commercials, cartoons and so on. It is not until later in life that somewhere inside them body, mind or otherwise tells them that they like enjoy the same genders company more than the other. Suddenly what they have grown up and been taught is now different than how they feel. This is my perspective from the video and the first time I took a step back after hearing people talking about how the environment has an impact and honestly it does. We are wrong to assume every child born is straight but yet have no way to detect if they will be gay. And so we raise them under the guidelines that they are straight.

Interesting video.

/Straight mans perspective
//Has gay family members
///Doesn't tolerate gay bashing
////Slashies don't have genders either.
 
2013-05-10 11:31:43 AM

Smackledorfer: Nayman: I have used this tactic in the past, and it does usually leave them dumbfounded....


I did have one person respond with this little gem:

Me: "When did you choose to be straight?"
Them: "No no... gay is a choice, like hair colour... I didn't choose to have brown hair, but they chose to change their natural state... like dying someone's hair blue. It's unnatural".

Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation. So they would never have to choose to be straight, because at heart, all gay people are too. 

Sickening.

It's a shiatty evasion, but I assume anti-gay apologists will come up with similarly stupid sound-bytes in an attempt to defeat it. Maybe we should just start making villians in movies homophobic, and heroes gay... it will filter into the public counciousness pretty quick.

My follow-up to that is usually to ask them if they ever considered making the choice to be gay.  When they vehemently insist they've never had a gay thought in their life, I ask them why think gays have those thoughts.  This usually brings them right back to either stumped altogether, or forced to declare it as a nature thing or a nurture thing.  Regardless of which it is, they usually have zero reasoning for why


I agree, but it usually regresses to the point of modal logic, which most people suck at... Essentially, it becomes  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA
I think a better tactic is to avoid the "Choice" question all together, and go after the root of the dislike... WHY do they dislike homosexuals... It almost always come down to one of two things...
1) The bible/god
2) Ickiness...

The answers for both are rather simple:

1) The bible is not a moral barometer for a variety of reasons (i.e... do you eat shrimp, do you get tattoos, do you wear mixed fibers, etc) and is historically innaccurate... Oh... and there is no god (if you're an atheist)... Also, you can get into the Euthyphro dilemma... If you believe in god, and believe god give us morals to follow, then... Are things moral because god says so? Or are things just objectively moral, and god is just reciting them to us? If he decides, then he could make ANYTHING moral (rape, murder, being republican) and you would HAVE TO AGREE , since he is god... If he doesn't decide, then he isn't the arbiter, and we can investigate what is actually moral based on our own understanding, not the bibles... it also undermines god as being a moral arbiter, and thus, Christianity as a whole...

Essentially, the bible is nonsense, and there isn't a god. 

2) Ickiness...

This one is easy... So farking what? I find eating fish disgusting. I hate fish. But I don't stop other people from eating it. They like it. If we outlaw everything you don't like, then where do we stop? 
Frankly, I find the idea of two guys going at it to be pretty boner-deflating, but I don't give a crap if they do it in private, where I don't have to watch. Whatever makes them happy. 

There has never been a  well-reasoned argument against homosexuality. Anti LGBT sentiment just needs to die with the old bags who still prop it up.
 
2013-05-10 11:32:46 AM
The first second my penis slid into a hot wet trembling vagina, I chose right then and there that was what I wanted.
 
2013-05-10 11:39:16 AM

Smackledorfer: pkellmey: it's ultimately up to society to decide what is/is not acceptable.

It is up to society. If society wanted to, we could make slavery legal in theory. Note that many of the items in your list really are not apt comparisons to homosexuality at all (unless you have some of the most ignorant views about homosexuality I've ever seen).


What's not apt? All of them are activities that people who do not have the genetic variations believe can lead to self-controlled activities. All of them are considered variants enough that you have portions of society that oppose it. Most of the activities have at least a few scientists somewhere who are researching to find the correct gene combination, where someone will then choose in the future whether to use to eliminate the preferential behavior. A few months ago, Chinese scientists believed they found a gene or gene combination that may lead to homosexual preferences. (Science reports from many portions of the world are questionable, so take it for what its worth.) Most analysts believe that if this finding is true, it will be the new targeted gene for future eliminations through abortions/genetic manipulation as genetic flaws in future-China, and possibly Russia as well. It could be worse than having a female child today. A futurist may not be too far off the mark to predict that homosexuality in the future may really only be a white persons issue.
 
2013-05-10 11:44:15 AM

Homer Nixon: I appreciate the logic but I don't appreciate the way the interviewer seems to be walking up to people and asking them the question straight away, without introduction or permission. Poor form.


Alternate Fark reality post.

I don't like how he didn't edit out his introductions. Obviously you got their permission. You don't have to show this sequence EVERY. DAMN. TIME. poor form.
 
2013-05-10 11:58:55 AM
Why does the questioner assume that because heterosexuals do not choose their sexuality, that the same must be true for homosexuals?
 
2013-05-10 12:06:05 PM

pkellmey: What's not apt?


You don't see what isn't apt about comparing a gambling disorder or obesity to homosexuality?  Being a gambling addict is no more related to being homosexual than it is related to being heterosexual - neither of those are addictions, and neither are self-destructive in and of themselves (save any stupid arguments about gay being bad because of stds to yourself, please)

Just because you found an area to compare the two doesn't mean there is any meaning to your comparison, and pretending otherwise does little more than muddy the discussion.

As for your new stroll away from the "should gay marriage be legal and gays not be harassed in society" discussion into one of eugenics, I think you are now deliberately muddying the waters even further, but amusingly have managed to highlight exactly why your talk of acceptance is the wrong question a free society should be asking itself.  But I'll bite.

If parents can turn off the gay gene in their little fetuses I have no problem with that. If gay parents want to turn one on in theirs, I have no problem with that. It doesn't matter to me if someone is gay or not, because another human being's homosexuality has no effect on my freedoms.  At the same time, it doesn't matter to me if someone wanted to have a gay child, because nothing about being gay, in and of itself, makes life worse - it isn't like you would hurt a child by making him or her gay. I would say that because there are fewer homosexuals it could be argued that it is harder to find a mate with a smaller pool of applicants, and that is probably the only objective item that could be used to say homosexuality is worse. Any difficulties beyond that are cultural ones caused by the lack of acceptance of gays and nothing more. Similarly I wouldn't care if you could make your child a redhead.

Meanwhile, your comparison items include things that are clearly objectively bad.  Switching on the gene to make your offspring prone to obesity or giving them less resistance to addiction would objectively hurt your child.  Switching those genes off objectively helps them: forget about whether or not society should find fat people sexy, it would be a fools argument to claim higher medical bills and shorter lifespan are a good gift to your child.  There is no benefit to your child to leave him a bankrupt gambling addict.  So those items are certainly not comparable in this context to society accepting homosexuality.
 
2013-05-10 12:07:30 PM

SkinnyHead: Why does the questioner assume that because heterosexuals do not choose their sexuality, that the same must be true for homosexuals?


Because they're both mammals.
 
2013-05-10 12:23:24 PM
Smackledorfer: Meanwhile, your comparison items include things that are clearly objectively bad.  Switching on the gene to make your offspring prone to obesity or giving them less resistance to addiction would objectively hurt your child.  Switching those genes off objectively helps them: forget about whether or not society should find fat people sexy, it would be a fools argument to claim higher medical bills and shorter lifespan are a good gift to your child.  There is no benefit to your child to leave him a bankrupt gambling addict.  So those items are certainly not comparable in this context to society accepting homosexuality.

You are completely speaking for the society you represent. Fat people in many societies are not considered to be bad problems. Your health consequence examples are what you consider important, not all societies, just like the consequences of lack of reproduction chances or higher std rates in homosexual relationships is a completely valid issue for some societies, however probably not to you. Your "objectivity" is flawed by your societal viewpoint.
 
2013-05-10 12:28:35 PM

marleymaniac: The first second my penis slid into a hot wet trembling vagina, I chose right then and there that was what I wanted.


Is that when you found your Special Purpose?
 
2013-05-10 12:32:59 PM
As a libertarian I'm all for equality and equal rights for all, but sadly the logic of the question is flawed.
If you are someone who "believes" that homosexuality is a "choice" then by this logic you are inherently/naturally "straight" from birth and can therefore ONLY "choose" to become gay, not the other way around.
 
2013-05-10 12:35:18 PM
there are two types of gay people I know currently:

1) those that knew since childhood that they felt a certain way

2) those who switched teams much later in adulthood


obviously (1) is like most of us, born with a predisposition one way or another and never give it a second thought. but we can't rule out (2) just because of that. Sexuality is more of a spectrum, and there are some people that question their own and, through experimentation, can determine over time what their preference is. This is more like a conscious decision, and has more of a chance of being influenced by one's environment over time.
 
2013-05-10 12:36:36 PM
When did I choose to be straight? When I decided I didn't like that cock in my mouth.
 
2013-05-10 12:37:50 PM

ExpressPork: As a libertarian I'm all for equality and equal rights for all, but sadly the logic of the question is flawed.
If you are someone who "believes" that homosexuality is a "choice" then by this logic you are inherently/naturally "straight" from birth and can therefore ONLY "choose" to become gay, not the other way around.


Before I get bombarded by farblibtards with bad reading comprehension I want to clarify (since I know I will have to) that the idea of homosexuality being a "choice" is not something I agree with in any way.  I think it's ridiculous and, in fact, it doesn't even matter anyway whether it is or not in my opinion.  I'm just pointing out that the question isn't exactly the "gotcha" that you all seem to think it is.
By believing it to be a "choice", you are therefore believing heterosexuality to be natural, ergo the only way to be homosexual is to choose to do so.
 
2013-05-10 12:48:32 PM

Nayman: I have used this tactic in the past, and it does usually leave them dumbfounded....


I did have one person respond with this little gem:

Me: "When did you choose to be straight?"
Them: "No no... gay is a choice, like hair colour... I didn't choose to have brown hair, but they chose to change their natural state... like dying someone's hair blue. It's unnatural".

Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation. So they would never have to choose to be straight, because at heart, all gay people are too. 

Sickening.

It's a shiatty evasion, but I assume anti-gay apologists will come up with similarly stupid sound-bytes in an attempt to defeat it. Maybe we should just start making villians in movies homophobic, and heroes gay... it will filter into the public counciousness pretty quick.


If gays are born that way, what happens when a test is developed to show whether your fetus is gay or straight? Then, the parents decide they don't want a gay child, and go get it aborted. Is that right or wrong?
 
2013-05-10 12:50:09 PM
Some people fear homosexuality because it is "not natural."

To them...
Being *born into* a biological heterosexual family means having a biological predisposition toward heterosexuality due to genetics. This is nature.
Being *raised by* a behavioral heterosexual family means having a behavioral predilection toward heterosexuality due to modeling. This is nurture.

Both of these things are true. But they are *not* absolute.

Religious folks fear that the second part may overcome the first. In their hearts they believe this to be true because...mostly...
...THEY KNOW THE POWER OF PEDAGOGY AND INCULCATION. THEY USE IT ON THEIR OWN CHILDREN. In fact, one could probably make the case the a predisposition toward religion is also genetic.

This is why they fight so hard against gay marriage. They think it will lead to more kids being nurtured to be homosexual later in life. This might be true, but *only* because the nurturing of homosexual parents is less likely to impose a superego of repression on top of a child biologically predisposed toward homosexuality. But really, the less farked up kids, the better for everyone.
 
2013-05-10 12:50:09 PM

ExpressPork: ...
By believing it to be a "choice", you are therefore believing heterosexuality to be natural, ergo the only way to be homosexual is to choose to do so.


Good point.  Hadn't considered perspective in the logic question.
 
2013-05-10 01:04:26 PM

Tumunga: Nayman: I have used this tactic in the past, and it does usually leave them dumbfounded....


I did have one person respond with this little gem:

Me: "When did you choose to be straight?"
Them: "No no... gay is a choice, like hair colour... I didn't choose to have brown hair, but they chose to change their natural state... like dying someone's hair blue. It's unnatural".

Essentially, a lot of people think Straight is just the default, and gay is a deviation. So they would never have to choose to be straight, because at heart, all gay people are too. 

Sickening.

It's a shiatty evasion, but I assume anti-gay apologists will come up with similarly stupid sound-bytes in an attempt to defeat it. Maybe we should just start making villians in movies homophobic, and heroes gay... it will filter into the public counciousness pretty quick.

If gays are born that way, what happens when a test is developed to show whether your fetus is gay or straight? Then, the parents decide they don't want a gay child, and go get it aborted. Is that right or wrong?


If you discover your unborn child will have a birth defect which will cause a life of suffering, and financial strife then perhaps parent should be able to choose to abort... Homosexuality does not cause suffering, and it is not disadvantageous... it would like aborting your fetus because you discovered they would be left handed. You are equivocating two very different scenarios. 


It should also be noted that
 
2013-05-10 01:26:31 PM

Fano: "What don't you but the whole WORLD in your anus, Super gay?"


I lawled.

/ best Superman comic of all time
// OF ALL TIME
 
2013-05-10 01:28:26 PM
The guy at the 01:47 mark hit the nail on the head. A bit of both. 
I have a friend who is currently married to a woman, and enjoys the hetero life, but for a while back in the '90s he decided to live the homo life. 
Some people are pre-disposed to being straight, some to being gay, and others who are happy hopping both sides of the fence. 
Coincidentally, "being bisexual doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night." -Woody Allen

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report