First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
The Old Homosexuality/Bisexuality as Choice debate..
3396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 7/2/12 , edited 7/2/12

DomFortress wrote:
And you think that sorta shallow attitude can help preventing homosexuals from being oppressed by unjust discrimination, prejudice, and ignorance, how? You'll simply bash anything, so long as you don't have to take any responsibility for your shallow expression.

And when both of you ended up depending on the same excuse, while either of you are from the opposite side of the same debate, both of you had rendered your own opinions on the subject pointless.


What does homosexuals have to do with this? That's not what we're discussing now. We're discussing language and terminology.
Besides, even if I have a shallow attitude towards this, doesn't mean I have a shallow attitude towards everything.

And why is my opinion rendered pointless, simply because someone else jokingly says that the english language is dumb?
33487 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 7/2/12 , edited 7/3/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:
I don't get this. Why would we have two words that mean the exact same thing?
Doesn't "homoSEXUAL" imply that there's sexual conduct involved?


Historical reasons. Within linguistics, etymology does not necessarily define meaning. Egregious comes from the Latin word meaing excellent (Egregius, -a, um), but in English egregious does not mean excellent but rather really bad. This is because words evolve. In the same way, homosexual evolved.

I'm not sure how homosexual evolved, but I know it's inexplicably linked to the gay rights movement post-Stonewall. If I were to conjecture, I'd imagine it arouse out of clinical studies that have a tendancy to focus on behaviors, e.g. sex, and thus started out as a sex-related term. Only later did people apply it to describe both romantic and sexual feelings, simply because there was no other word that would closely approximate same-sex attraction.

Either way, in the case of the word homosexual, the etymology is misleading and is better ignored.

Edit: Also, for the record, and Else-ee brought this above, the Latin base sexual does NOT mean of or relating to sexual intercouse, but rather of or relating to biological sex (i.e. male or female). This is because the Latin word sexus means biological sex, not sexual intercouse. The English language simply evolved to the point where sex referred to intercouse, not just whether you were male or female. It's for the reason that the word to denote whether you are biologically male or female and the act of intercouse are the same. That said, this is almost an entirely moot point, given that homo- is Greek prefix and sexual is a Latin base, indicating it was coined by someone who spoke neither language but simply used them for nomenclature. In the other words, scientists, psychologists, etc. This is made more evident in that the Greek and Latin language never really had a word for gay, given that they really never made the distinction between heterosexual or homosexual. At best, close approximations are made, such as Cineadus which literally means something along the lines of "a man who takes in the ass" (based on its use in Catallus 16). It's not meant to be homophobic, it's just that is the closest thing Latin has to our use of "gay."
Posted 7/2/12

Zoraprime wrote:



Historical reasons. Within linguistics, etymology does not necessarily define meaning. Egregious comes from the Latin word meaing excellent (Egregius, -a, um), but in English egregious does not mean excellent but rather really bad. This is because words evolve. In the same way, homosexual evolved.

I'm not sure how homosexual evolved, but I know it's inexplicably linked to the gay rights movement post-Stonewall. If I were to conjecture, I'd imagine it arouse out of clinical studies that have a tendancy to focus on behaviors, e.g. sex, and thus started out as a sex-related term. Only later did people apply it to describe both romantic and sexual feelings, simply because there was no other word that would closely approximate same-sex attraction.

Either way, in the case of the word homosexual, the etymology is misleading and is better ignored.

Edit: Also, for the record, and Else-ee brought this above, the Latin base sexual does NOT mean of or relating to sexual intercouse, but rather of or relating to biological sex (i.e. male or female). This is because the Latin word sexus means biological sex, not sexual intercouse. The English language simply evolved to the point where sex referred to intercouse, not just whether you were male or female. It's for the reason that the word to denote whether you are biologically male or female and the act of intercouse or the same. That said, this is almost an entirely moot point, given that homo- is Greek prefix and sexual is a Latin base, indicating it was coined by someone who spoke neither language but simply used them for nomenclature. In the other words, scientists, psychologists, etc. This is made more evident in that the Greek and Latin language never really had a word for gay, given that they really never made the disctinction between heterosexual or homosexual. At best, close approximations are made, such as Cineadus which literally means something along the lines of "a man who takes in the ass" (based on its use in Catallus 16). It's not to be homophobic, it's just that is the closest thing Latin has to our use of "gay."
Like how biological lifeforms evolved through trial and error, same-sex couple relationship is also a work-in-progress. At the beginning of homosexuals coming out of the closet in 1950's Canada, they were literally mimicking the symbolic roles of heterosexual couples in a romantic relationship, even down to the point of dysfunctional battering. Now this is a close representative on the latest development of same-sex relation.

LZ Granderson: The myth of the gay agenda
In a humorous talk with an urgent message, LZ Granderson points out the absurdity in the idea that there's a "gay lifestyle," much less a "gay agenda." (Filmed at TEDxGrandRapids.)
33487 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 7/3/12

DomFortress wrote:Like how biological lifeforms evolved through trial and error, same-sex couple relationship is also a work-in-progress. At the beginning of homosexuals coming out of the closet in 1950's Canada, they were literally mimicking the symbolic roles of heterosexual couples in a romantic relationship, even down to the point of dysfunctional battering. Now this is a close representative on the latest development of same-sex relation.

LZ Granderson: The myth of the gay agenda
In a humorous talk with an urgent message, LZ Granderson points out the absurdity in the idea that there's a "gay lifestyle," much less a "gay agenda." (Filmed at TEDxGrandRapids.)


Am I the only one confused where this post is coming from, much less why he's quoting me?
Posted 7/3/12

Zoraprime wrote:


DomFortress wrote:Like how biological lifeforms evolved through trial and error, same-sex couple relationship is also a work-in-progress. At the beginning of homosexuals coming out of the closet in 1950's Canada, they were literally mimicking the symbolic roles of heterosexual couples in a romantic relationship, even down to the point of dysfunctional battering. Now this is a close representative on the latest development of same-sex relation.

LZ Granderson: The myth of the gay agenda
In a humorous talk with an urgent message, LZ Granderson points out the absurdity in the idea that there's a "gay lifestyle," much less a "gay agenda." (Filmed at TEDxGrandRapids.)


Am I the only one confused where this post is coming from, much less why he's quoting me?
You asked this question, so I answered.

I'm not sure how homosexual evolved, but I know it's inexplicably linked to the gay rights movement post-Stonewall.
Behavior psychology isn't just about sexual behavior, that was a misunderstanding and obsession by the public on Sigmund Freud's earlier hypothesis about human sexuality.
33487 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 7/3/12

DomFortress wrote:
You asked this question, so I answered.
]You asked this question, so I answered.

I'm not sure how homosexual evolved, but I know it's inexplicably linked to the gay rights movement post-Stonewall.
Behavior psychology isn't just about sexual behavior, that was a misunderstanding and obsession by the public on Sigmund Freud's earlier hypothesis about human sexuality.


I was talking about the word homosexual evolved, not how homosexuality itself evolved.
Posted 7/3/12

Zoraprime wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
You asked this question, so I answered.
]You asked this question, so I answered.

I'm not sure how homosexual evolved, but I know it's inexplicably linked to the gay rights movement post-Stonewall.
Behavior psychology isn't just about sexual behavior, that was a misunderstanding and obsession by the public on Sigmund Freud's earlier hypothesis about human sexuality.


I was talking about the word homosexual evolved, not how homosexuality itself evolved.
When the meaning of the word itself no longer represent the true state of homosexuality, does it matter how twisted and removed its misconception is from objective reality?
13667 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/12 , edited 7/5/12
Its a choice to an extent. But, being BORN gay, is a fact. My cousin Robert, he goes by Brucie, was gay his entire life. He's older than I am, but, my Mom always tells me stories about when they were little, and I even saw some old tape recordings of him as a young boy, acting like a girl. Singing and dancing to Madonna songs. It was quite fabulous. That, is a PERFECT example, of being born homosexual.

To an extent, I mean, say you're experimenting with your sexual orientation. Its happened to many of my friends before. All of a sudden becoming full on homosexual, no, you're either fooling around or lying to yourself and others.
33487 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 7/5/12 , edited 7/5/12

Hachikobubble wrote:

But, being BORN gay, is a fact.


This statement has always bothered me personally. It always came off that the LGBTQA community, under fire that people were saying homosexuality/bisexuality/transgenderism is a choice, go to the other extreme and said they were born that way. Part of what bothers me is that there is evidence to suggest that genes (and perhaps the prenatal environment as a whole) do not necessarily determine sexuality. Namely, in the case of identical twins, if one twin is gay, there is about a 70% chance the other twin is gay. This is enough to suggest that genes do not necessarily determine sexuality. I don't know what does says about the prenatal environment, but I cannot think of a reason why one twin would be exposed to some chemical that would make him gay that the other twin--living in the same womb--would avoid. But I'm no biologist, so maybe someone has an answer for that. Nevertheless, prenatal factors definitely have a very strong influence.

Even so, I feel that the sentiment behind "we're born that way" is that homosexuality/bisexuality/transgenderism is NOT a choice and that is immutable. And I can agree that all those are neither a choice nor immutable.


2339 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hachikobubble
Offline
Posted 7/5/12
Well... I'm bi-sexual, I have my say onto the subject ;

i think i was born into it. because... i don't know why i'm attracted to women. maybe it was something in my childhood that i don't remember. but, i have fallen for girls, (and guys,) but i simply don't no why. so, i don't think its really a choice, from what i know, and from my sexual orientation.

and hi hi, Hachi~chan! ;D
33487 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 7/5/12
But that's the thing... you don't know. Iif something is a choice and immutable (both of which I feel are true aspects of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism), there is nothing to indicate that you must have been born that way. I just feel the conclusion is premature more than anything, and I feel more comfortable arriving at no conclusion than a premature one.
Posted 7/5/12 , edited 7/5/12

Zoraprime wrote:


Hachikobubble wrote:

But, being BORN gay, is a fact.


This statement has always bothered me personally. It always came off that the LGBTQA community, under fire that people were saying homosexuality/bisexuality/transgenderism is a choice, go to the other extreme and said they were born that way. Part of what bothers me is that there is evidence to suggest that genes (and perhaps the prenatal environment as a whole) do not necessarily determine sexuality. Namely, in the case of identical twins, if one twin is gay, there is about a 70% chance the other twin is gay. This is enough to suggest that genes do not necessarily determine sexuality. I don't know what does says about the prenatal environment, but I cannot think of a reason why one twin would be exposed to some chemical that would make him gay that the other twin--living in the same womb--would avoid. But I'm no biologist, so maybe someone has an answer for that. Nevertheless, prenatal factors definitely have a very strong influence.

Even so, I feel that the sentiment behind "we're born that way" is that homosexuality/bisexuality/transgenderism is NOT a choice and that is immutable. And I can agree that all those are neither a choice nor immutable.
Even when the chances aren't 100%, when you consider the complexity of evolutionary genetics through random mutation, anything that's greater than 50% probability is a miracle that's greater than at winning a coin-toss. After all, "the central enemy of reliability is complexity". When using random selection on identical twin subjects, as a double-blind test to specifically eliminate volunteer sample bias, this statistic is very impressive. Especially when we consider the 1948 Kinsey report, even with its sample bias on US male inmates being overrepresented homosexuals and bisexuals, due to no small part in their crime of sodomy, had only showed that nearly 46% of the male subjects had "reacted" sexually to persons of both sexes in the course of their adult lives, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience(citation). That's how strong an influence "prenatal factors" are, when we also consider the study called "fetal origins":

Annie Murphy Paul: What we learn before we're born
Pop quiz: When does learning begin? Answer: Before we are born. Science writer Annie Murphy Paul talks through new research that shows how much we learn in the womb -- from the lilt of our native language to our soon-to-be-favorite foods.


Zoraprime wrote:

I'll chime in my two cents here. I'd imagine most people here will agree with me, but for the minority who don't...

The fact is, homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is not a choice. Most of the debate seems less about proving homosexuality is a choice more about trying to label homosexuality as a choice just to derogate homosexual individuals. And the label of choice isn't a description, it's propaganda. Because homosexuality manifests itself just as it does. I realize that's a tautological statement, but I think many of us have a vague idea of how sexuality manifests itself. There's no knowledge of if you're going to come out straight or gay or somewhere in between. It just happens. And sure maybe a host of arbitrary decisions led to your sexuality, but they were arbitrary. Arbitrary decisions are not choices. Choice implies you made a decision that wasn't arbitrary. And yet, despite the fact that homosexuality may manifest itself through a domino effect of arbitrary decisions at one hand and simply innate at the other doesn't make it any more or less a "choice." It just happens. To argue that homosexuality is a choice is simply to argue semantics. And people argue those semantics because they want homosexuality to be labeled as a choice.

The other side tries to extend homosexuality beyond sexual orientation and to be actively gay is a choice. Again, it's mincing words. Sure, if you want to get to the itty gritty of it, one does choose to have intimate relations or not. But to simplify something as complicated as one's sexual life to a simple choice of having a relationship or not having a relationship eclipses the issue of sexuality entirely. People have a sex drive, and people will want to have relationships. It's how we are. And to fight against our sex drive takes a sheer force of will. So why should anyone fight against their sex drive? The fact is, you don't choose to have a relationship or not to have a relationship. You choose to satisfy your natural desires or to fight against them. That's the choice. And here's where the word "choice" becomes nothing more than propaganda. If we say that homosexual individuals chose to abide to their natural impulses, we are saying that actively gay members are weak. They chose not to fight. However, heterosexual individuals are not branded in the same way. They are considered neither strong nor weak for abiding to their sexual impulses. The whole idea behind saying homosexual individuals "chose" to have a have a "homosexual lifestyle" (I detest the word lifestyle, but that's an aside) is nothing more than trying to label them as inferior, as if they're inherently weak for not fighting against what others do not need to. The entire point is simply to label homosexual individuals as weak, and isn't to give any insight into how homosexuality manifest itself.

And when it comes down to it, that's the main issue. The idea of arguing whether or not homosexuality is a choice seems like a sugar-coated PC way to argue whether or not homosexual individuals have parity. The entire debate only occasionally tangents on homosexuality manifests itself, but by far and large, actually does nothing to increase our knowledge about the world around us.
My sentiment exactly. You've outdone yourself and contribute greatly for human equality with that statement of yours, I thank you.
55090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/5/12
I look at it this way, bisexual is a choice I sure they have a preference most that I have meet do. Homosexuality is something you in your brain chemistry/ Identity . I have meet many that are homosexual by there experience in life.(I have herd the term used as Default) Bad relationships with males or female in any case i think there looking for comfort or acceptance by any one. That just my guess and by the people I have meet. in my life time. Something you should be aware of the branch of the U.S armed force that has the most GAY males is the Marine corps I do not think I would want to upset a Marine could be bad for ones health. There probably questioning them selves at this early stage of life, or proving to themselves they can over come or what ever there reason is. To me I really could careless as long as it dose not bother me and my work. Hiring a gay carpenter no big deal Hiring a flaming gay carpenter big problem that I can do with out. I need to make money and if somebody interferes with it do to inappropriate behavior in the work place they can leave. I have let people go for not speaking clearly or just do not come across as a professional. I do not care what they do no there own time. I do not agree that gay rights and civil right should be seen in the same light.
33487 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 7/6/12 , edited 7/6/12

tarakelly wrote:
I do not agree that gay rights and civil right should be seen in the same light.


You do realize the gay rights movement is itself part of the civil rights movement? The civil rights movement continued throughotus the 60s where liberators started to get more militant and demanded social justice, right when the Stonewall Riots occurred.

Yes, people of color had a history of oppression, but the only reason LGBT people didn't have a history of oppresion on such a massive scale is because they really didn't have much of a history to begin with. Even where history existed, historical fragments like Saphos' poems were seen by scholars (and thus the world as large) as nothing more than a deep platonic affection beacuse they didn't want to accept that homosexuality was once practiced.
55090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/6/12 , edited 7/6/12
This is so sad to think of all the people that have died from the slavery, the civil war, and the final fight to be recognized as people equal to all others. Did gay get turn down the right to vote did the homosexual population ever really struggle compared to what the blacks have been through. Even women's suffrage movement had more to complain about than Homosexual community has today. I do think gays should fight for themselves but on there own issues not on the backs of others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes there are many people out there and with all sorts of predigest to the point the will hurt or even kill some else. This is sad, but it is not just homosexual, from religion , anti religion height weight and so forth. People prejudge others all the time for many reason. Life is not fair that just a fact of life. Many people are just born with natural talents from intellect to physical strength that just a fact of life. From height, looks, weight the general appearance of a person. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then again I found many foo my homosexual friends are overly opinionated and have many negative things to talk about others. I find that in many groups of people from social to the type work they do. I have notice there are stereo types they all complain about. I get dog out to to my poor spelling grammar but most people do not no what i have had to deal with. I just have to accept that as a fact of life.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.