Originally Posted by
Spudulika
Osarusan, I believe that homosexuality is a choice, albeit one brought about by many, many influences. I do not believe that people are "born this way", that is until a DNA code is produced to prove me wrong. However, like God and Santa (until age 11) I will believe in what is unseen as it cannot be explained away by science. However, I do believe it is a choice and I do not believe or feel it is wrong.
So, when did you decide to be straight then?
And by science/nature, we are designed to procreate, at least supposed to.
Are we? Says who? There's no evidence anywhere to suggest that we have been designed* as a species, let alone designed with some special function or purpose in mind. Science has also observed and documented homosexuality in nature. How can that be if it is unnatural?
*When I say "designed", I mean that there is nothing to suggest we have been designed by some intelligent or directing maker. Our biology may have the appearance of design to some, but that is simply as a result of the fact that we appear to possess a suitability towards our environment(s). That suitability is not as a result of a pre-determined design by some thinking designer though; rather, it is as a result of undirected gene mutation and natural selection, or the process of evolution, in other words. Evolution is an unthinking and undirected phenomenon not guided by intelligence or some over-riding purpose towards some pre-determined goal or end-point. It doesn't have an objective purpose or function. It just happens and we are its result. That doesn't mean that any particular human behaviour is objectively more right, natural or valid than another.
A well known tennis player was abused by a male coach at a very young age (11-15), at 16 she was approached at a tournament by an older female player/coach who (apologies) "turned" her. From 16 to retirement she was an avowed lesbian. Then on retirement promptly married, a man, and told me to my face "It was more convenient being lesbian when I was on the tour." I can name 4 players who did the same, including a double gold winner from the USA (90's).
Maybe she is/they are what society defines as bisexual? You could say we're all potentially pansexual. Maybe the "choice" is in whether or not we want or choose to engage in such acts commonly defined as homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Some of us may not engage in sexual acts at all. Just because this tennis player might have found herself to be more attracted to certain members of one sex over members of another at different points in her life doesn't invalidate her feelings or render them unnatural.
You presumably identify as heterosexual, but that doesn't mean you find every other member of the opposite sex attractive, does it? You'll still discriminate (to use the term completely neutrally) between members of the opposite sex based on your personal preference, I would imagine. Is that something you can choose? Most probably not. Finding it more convenient (for whatever reason) to be with one member of the opposite sex over another at a particular point in time doesn't mean that your whole sexuality is a matter of whimsical choice. Why would it be any different for this tennis player?
Originally Posted by
Spudulika
If not, then biology would rule against same sex pairings, at least in pure science, though I could be wrong.
How so? Lots of biological beings (humans and animals) engage or have engaged in homosexual acts and have clearly or self-declaredly felt perfectly natural when doing so.
Originally Posted by
Spudulika
I'm trying to remember the name of the writer who wrote about sexuality being flexible. It was from a comparative study and I am almost certain it had some angle on the LPGA. I could be wrong to say a Dr. Black. But one of the points she made was that some people are able to adapt to environments, that we have predispositions rather than predeterminations.
I think Gore Vidal's thoughts on the matter ('Sexually Speaking' or 'Sex is Politics' especially) are definitely worth exploring. I think of them as being very progressive. Even some LGBT groups find it difficult to identify with or get to grips with Vidal's "haughty" opinions on sexuality (in spite of the fact he spent most of his sexual life engaging in what society would deem homosexual acts) because they transcend the concept or process of categorisation. Vidal eschewed the whole notion of sexual identity/identities.
"Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them.
...
The reason no one has yet been able to come up with a good word to describe the homosexualist (sometimes known as gay, fag, queer, etc.) is because he does not exist. The human race is divided into male and female. Many human beings enjoy sexual relations with their own sex, many don't; many respond to both. This plurality is the fact of our nature and not worth fretting about."
"Look, what I'm preaching is: don't be ghettoized, don't be categorized. Every state tries to categorize its citizens in order to assert control of them."
Originally Posted by
mypost
As far as the Russians are concerned, their position is right, and is what they want their society to be. They don't consider the west right to be "tolerant" of diversity, they consider us weak for having to cater for every section of society, even those we don't like and have no time for.
Is this your position too? The acceptance and protection of minorities and minority interests is all part and parcel of free and open democratic society. Diversity of ideas is strengthening and helps advance our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. That is progress and represents security in the self. Closed societies are grounded in insecurity and fear of difference because the very notion of diversity or contrasting modes of thought might be perceived as threatening to the conservation of the established order. Which is truly the weaker grounding here?
And you may drop the "we", thanks. I'm not sure most people from Ireland would actually agree with you in positively disliking those you consider to be non-traditional.
I'm sorry, you're wrong there. Our abortion legislation is broadly in line with Rome's. Our education facilities were and are, by and large facilitated by various religious orders. Our christmas and easter traditions are heavily influenced by the church. We still have "fast" days, while Good Friday alcohol legislation is a sop to catholicism. The conflict in NI was fought on religious lines as well as political lines. While I'm no bible-basher, the Irish are overwhelmingly catholic, and our religion has a massive influence on our legislation and society.
Irish laws are of the people. They are not of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church may have some influence over some of the Irish population, but we remain a secular republic. Catholicism is not "our" religion. Many Irish people subscribe to other beliefs and faith systems too, or none even. Or are you in denial of the shared Irishness of these others too? Do you deny me my Irishness because I might be an agnostic atheist?
And just on the conflict in the north; it was not a theological conflict (and certainly not from the Irish nationalist/republican perspective oft-lazily dubbed "Catholic"). Religion came to be a social marker (for reasons other than contrasting theology), certainly, but no serious Irish republican (even if he or she also happened to be Catholic) ever got involved in the struggle out of some desire to crush Protestantism or to convert Protestants into believing in transubstantiation or the veneration of the Blessed Virgin.
Bookmarks