How “hard” is the choice
By Mona
.
Clownhall has teh geys and their “lifestyle” down to a science, I tells ya, my emphasis.
Those pushing the homosexual agenda, including their accomplices in the media, typically portray presentable and socially successful persons who have purportedly made a lifelong and stable commitment to another person of the same sex. Over time, the American people have been lulled into the belief that all persons engaged in homosexual behavior are open about, committed to, and comfortable with their choice.[…]In the end, those who profess to be “gay” or “lesbian,” or who have otherwise slipped in and out of homosexual behavior, including “cruising” for anonymous partners, are people who succumb to a dangerous temptation. We should not accept as genetics that which is a choice.
Cuz yanno, if a guy just doesn’t get tumescent when looking at nekkid wimmins, but springs right to attention when viewing a buffed male of the species, that fella is exercising remarkable, astonishing “choice.”
Comment by srv —
September 30, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Sometimes I question evolution - every animal should have a natural enemy. If that’s so, Republicans should be getting assraped on a regular basis.
Comment by just sayin —
September 30, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
That’s not exactly their point. Many of them wouldn’t argue with Jon Stewart’s statement that “Your mind can be changed, your heart can be swayed, your dick…is incredibly stubborn.” But whether to follow that tumescent member where it wants to go is a choice for either a straight man or a gay one.
Comment by Mona —
September 30, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Yes it is, hence the dissing of genetics (and in other venues, uterine hormone influences during gestation). And also hence, “reparative therapy” to “cure” same-sex attraction.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
September 30, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
I keep wanting to see someone ask these folks about how they “chose” to be heterosexual. That could be interesting.
Comment by Mona —
September 30, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Goddidit.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
September 30, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
“Yes it is, hence the dissing of genetics…”
No Mona, you are wrong, and just sayin is correct. You were raised Catholic — are you yet entirely unaware of what the position of the Church is in this regard? Whether an inclination to homosexuality is genetic or not is entirely irrelevant to the Church’s position here, which is that the sin is not in the inclination, but in the action. Now, it’s one thing to disagree with that position, but you are simply mis-representing it for cheap sarcasm points.
Comment by Mona —
September 30, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Gene Callahan: I’ve not invoked the Catholic Church’s position, which has more or less conceded that homosexual orientation is not a “choice.” Others do not accept that proposition, however, including the author of article under discussion, as well as many Xian fundamentalists who believe that gays can “recruit” by somehow making their orientation transmissible via “propaganda” and/or “seduction.”
Please stay on point.
Comment by racrecir —
September 30, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Isn’t this another example of the Dinesh D’Souza Jihad wing of the right finding common cause with the people they think they are against? Compare:
Desiring Arabs: “It is the very discourse of the Gay International which produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist.” The author doesn’t deny that same-sex sexual contact exists in Arab countries, but claims that the category of “homosexual” is purely a Western one exported to the Arab world by Western cultural imperialists.
The Kingdom in the Closet: But what seems more startling, at least from a Western perspective, is that some of the men having sex with other men don’t consider themselves gay. For many Saudis, the fact that a man has sex with another man has little to do with “gayness.” The act may fulfill a desire or a need, but it doesn’t constitute an identity.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
September 30, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
The author of this article is clearly sceptical about genetic theories of homosexuality, but he invokes “choice” only in the context of “homosexual behaviour” and cruising. Nowhere does he say that homosexual orientation is a choice.
I’m actually quite uncertain as to what a sensible sexual morality looks like, and so I do not approach these matters with a pre-disposition to side with, say, you or Nimocks. But I really dislike “argument by mockery” when it involves setting up a straw man to mock.
So, please stay on point, Mona.
Comment by Mona —
October 1, 2007 @ 7:59 am
Which, of course, I did not do. As you admit, he raises the subject of genetics; he clearly is skeptical that homosexuality per se is a choice.