First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
The Old Homosexuality/Bisexuality as Choice debate..
20150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / England
Offline
Posted 12/10/11 , edited 12/10/11
I'm increasingly frustrated by the whole Homosexuality as a choice debate that continues to rage on and on. I know that many of these things have been said before, I'm not the first and I've read similar stuff to what I'm saying in the papers but I need to rant about it and form the argument in my own way so hopefully it's clear to people

Let me know what you think!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_3jBSJfMo
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/11/11
Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice.
Being sexually active is a choice, since you can also choose to NOT be sexually active. It's not something that's mandatory.
Posted 12/11/11

GundamMeister100 wrote:

I'm increasingly frustrated by the whole Homosexuality as a choice debate that continues to rage on and on. I know that many of these things have been said before, I'm not the first and I've read similar stuff to what I'm saying in the papers but I need to rant about it and form the argument in my own way so hopefully it's clear to people

Let me know what you think!

You asked for it, and here I'm letting you have at it.

All you did in the video is simply turning your "argument" as a verbal assault with opinion like "go f*ck right off", without yourself establishing an honest discourse using observable reality as evidence. In effect all you managed to do is fanning the flame through your own frustration, you didn't contribute any social good for the community.

If you still don't know what I mean, I've got three examples here, here, and here.

And yes, I understand that I've demonstrated how sexual orientation isn't a choice. But is there really "free-choice" in a world of "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" through the process of "framing"? Thus our sexual preference OTOH is a learned behavior, contradictory to this opinion here:
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/12/11 , edited 12/12/11

DomFortress wrote:

And yes, I understand that I've demonstrated how sexual orientation isn't a choice. But is there really "free-choice" in a world of "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" through the process of "framing"? Thus our sexual preference OTOH is a learned behavior, contradictory to this opinion here:


"Contradictory to this opinion here", huh?
It wasn't enough just saying "sexual preference is a learned behavior", but you had to out my comment as being contradictory to your own?
May I ask why?

Also, where did I say anything about sexual orientation or preference?
All I said was that being sexually active is a choice. Nothing else.
20150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / England
Offline
Posted 12/12/11 , edited 12/12/11



All you did in the video is simply turning your "argument" as a verbal assault with opinion like "go f*ck right off", without yourself establishing an honest discourse using observable reality as evidence. In effect all you managed to do is fanning the flame through your own frustration, you didn't contribute any social good for the community.


I do establish an honest discourse it's just not the one that you happen to want to hear, it seems so you're attacking my obviously stylised end to the video instead. I'm discussing the idea that pursuing arguments based around the idea of "homosexuality as choice" is not just not a good idea, but can lead to pretty undesirable conclusions, namely, the continued acceptance of the premise that hopmosexuality is a "bad thing".

What more did you want in just 2 minutes?


And yes, I understand that I've demonstrated how sexual orientation isn't a choice. But is there really "free-choice" in a world of "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" through the process of "framing"? Thus our sexual preference OTOH is a learned behavior, contradictory to this opinion here:


I agree with this. I don't recall discussing any of this in the video.

Posted 12/12/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:



"Contradictory to this opinion here", huh?
It wasn't enough just saying "sexual preference is a learned behavior", but you had to out my comment as being contradictory to your own?
May I ask why?

Also, where did I say anything about sexual orientation or preference?
All I said was that being sexually active is a choice. Nothing else.
Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control.


GundamMeister100 wrote:



I do establish an honest discourse it's just not the one that you happen to want to hear, it seems so you're attacking my obviously stylised end to the video instead. I'm discussing the idea that pursuing arguments based around the idea of "homosexuality as choice" is not just not a good idea, but can lead to pretty undesirable conclusions, namely, the continued acceptance of the premise that hopmosexuality is a "bad thing".

What more did you want in just 2 minutes?


And yes, I understand that I've demonstrated how sexual orientation isn't a choice. But is there really "free-choice" in a world of "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" through the process of "framing"? Thus our sexual preference OTOH is a learned behavior, contradictory to this opinion here:


I agree with this. I don't recall discussing any of this in the video.

What I want is regardless of the fact how humans aren't in control of their decision-making process.

Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the drivers seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.

Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
---- from "Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? "

You were so obsessed on defending this illusion of choice, you didn't even bother to consider the reality of human irrational behaviors. Thus your 2 minutes rant is nothing more than a one-way knee-jerking tantrum at best, and not a "discourse" because you showed no "honest"interest for further discussion with your "go f*ck right off" "stylization".
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/12/11 , edited 12/12/11

DomFortress wrote:

Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control.


I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity.
Posted 12/13/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:



I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity.
"Free-will"? That's also an illusion, when human fetuses were sociologically and biologically conditioned by their mothers, and the social epicgenetics surrounding their mothers.

Fetal origins is a scientific discipline that emerged just about two decades ago, and it's based on the theory that our health and well-being throughout our lives is crucially affected by the nine months we spend in the womb. Now this theory was of more than just intellectual interest to me. I was myself pregnant while I was doing the research for the book. And one of the most fascinating insights I took from this work is that we're all learning about the world even before we enter it.

When we hold our babies for the first time, we might imagine that they're clean slates, unmarked by life, when in fact, they've already been shaped by us and by the particular world we live in. Today I want to share with you some of the amazing things that scientists are discovering about what fetuses learn while they're still in their mothers' bellies.

First of all, they learn the sound of their mothers' voices. Because sounds from the outside world have to travel through the mother's abdominal tissue and through the amniotic fluid that surrounds the fetus, the voices fetuses hear, starting around the fourth month of gestation, are muted and muffled. One researcher says that they probably sound a lot like the the voice of Charlie Brown's teacher in the old "Peanuts" cartoon. But the pregnant woman's own voice reverberates through her body, reaching the fetus much more readily. And because the fetus is with her all the time, it hears her voice a lot. Once the baby's born, it recognizes her voice and it prefers listening to her voice over anyone else's.

How can we know this? Newborn babies can't do much, but one thing they're really good at is sucking. Researchers take advantage of this fact by rigging up two rubber nipples, so that if a baby sucks on one, it hears a recording of its mother's voice on a pair of headphones, and if it sucks on the other nipple, it hears a recording of a female stranger's voice. Babies quickly show their preference by choosing the first one. Scientists also take advantage of the fact that babies will slow down their sucking when something interests them and resume their fast sucking when they get bored. This is how researchers discovered that, after women repeatedly read aloud a section of Dr. Seuss' "The Cat in the Hat" while they were pregnant, their newborn babies recognized that passage when they hear it outside the womb. My favorite experiment of this kind is the one that showed that the babies of women who watched a certain soap opera every day during pregnancy recognized the theme song of that show once they were born. So fetuses are even learning about the particular language that's spoken in the world that they'll be born into.
---- from "Annie Murphy Paul: What we learn before we're born"

Tell me, where's this "free-will" of yours to choose not to prefer the sound of your own mother's voice and language? Or that your own preference, and subsequently your own behavior, are merely the consequence of your mother's societal and cultural conditions that's even beyond her own control, thus you were never free from society's influence in the first place.

Besides, when mainstream medias are culturally normalizing women the same way as how convicted rapists are sexually objectifying them. Can you be responsible of your involuntary adaptation for the role of a "consuming kid"?
20150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / England
Offline
Posted 12/13/11

DomFortress
You were so obsessed on defending this illusion of choice, you didn't even bother to consider the reality of human irrational behaviors. Thus your 2 minutes rant is nothing more than a one-way knee-jerking tantrum at best, and not a "discourse" because you showed no "honest"interest for further discussion with your "go f*ck right off" "stylization".


Ok, thanks for the feedback.

3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/13/11 , edited 12/13/11

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity.
"Free-will"? That's also an illusion, when human fetuses were sociologically and biologically conditioned by their mothers, and the social epicgenetics surrounding their mothers.


Yeah, except it's really not.
By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents.
Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed.

Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay.
This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents.
So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen?

Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE.
What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions.
Posted 12/13/11 , edited 12/13/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:



Yeah, except it's really not.
By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents.
Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed.

Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay.
This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents.
So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen?


Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE.
What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions.
Wrong. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, free-will is "a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives".(citation) That "somethings" isn't the same as an alternatives, considering how the rationale behind religious dogma ,aka God's will, can't be analyzed. Therefore it's actually an unknown, and not an alternative that can be considered.

Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity.

Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women.

There was a time in my life where we had a very troubled experience in our family. My brother, Henry, he died tragically when we were teenagers. We lived in New York City, as I said. We lived in the Bronx at the time, and the burial was in a place called Long Island, it was about two hours outside of the city. And as we were preparing to come back from the burial, the cars stopped at the bathroom to let folks take care of themselves before the long ride back to the city. And the limousine empties out. My mother, my sister, my auntie, they all get out, but my father and I stayed in the limousine, and no sooner than the women got out, he burst out crying. He didn't want cry in front of me, but he knew he wasn't going to make it back to the city, and it was better me than to allow himself to express these feelings and emotions in front of the women. And this is a man who, 10 minutes ago, had just put his teenage son in the ground -- something I just can't even imagine. The thing that sticks with me the most is that he was apologizing to me for crying in front of me, and at the same time, he was also giving me props, lifting me up, for not crying.

I come to also look at this as this fear that we have as men, this fear that just has us paralyzed, holding us hostage to this man box. I can remember speaking to a 12-year-old boy, a football player, and I asked him, I said, "How would you feel if, in front of all the players, your coach told you you were playing like a girl?" Now I expected him to say something like, I'd be sad; I'd be mad; I'd be angry, or something like that. No, the boy said to me -- the boy said to me, "It would destroy me." And I said to myself, "God, if it would destroy him to be called a girl, what are we then teaching him about girls?"....

.... See collectively, we as men are taught to have less value in women, to view them as property and the objects of men. We see that as an equation that equals violence against women. We as men, good men, the large majority of men, we operate on the foundation of this whole collective socialization. We kind of see ourselves separate, but we're very much a part of it. You see, we have to come to understand that less value, property and objectification is the foundation and the violence can't happen without it. So we're very much a part of the solution as well as the problem. The center for disease control says that men's violence against women is at epidemic proportions, is the number one health concern for women in this country and abroad.
---- from "Tony Porter: A call to men"

"No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions"? What is homosexual studies in twins.
Posted 12/14/11
Some didn't have a choice when their preference became what it did upon birth.

3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/15/11 , edited 12/15/11

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



Yeah, except it's really not.
By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents.
Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed.

Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay.
This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents.
So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen?


Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE.
What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions.
Wrong. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, free-will is "a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives".(citation) That "somethings" isn't the same as an alternatives, considering how the rationale behind religious dogma ,aka God's will, can't be analyzed. Therefore it's actually an unknown, and not an alternative that can be considered.

Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity.

Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women.


It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure.
However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it.
For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be.
And then make a choice based on that.

And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use thatargument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions.

As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person.
Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case.
And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant.
Posted 12/16/11 , edited 12/16/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:



It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure.
However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it.
For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be.
And then make a choice based on that.

And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions.

As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person.
Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case.
And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant.
OBJECTION!

Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry.

Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress.

So don't try to pretend that you're open-minded. When the fact is you're proactively defending and justifying an "unjust, inept, and corrupt system" called the ex-gay movement.

System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be."

Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation)

So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo.

Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/18/11

DomFortress wrote:




Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something.
Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.