Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Why I Think it's Funny when Someone Vehemently Claims that Homosexuality is a "Choice"

Why does it seem such claims are made most forcefully by the Paul Bunyan types — outdoorsy, with a thatch of whiskers you could lose a Hungry Man TV dinner in — or by "ex-gays" on a holy crusade who can only hint coyly in the form of religious koans that as long as they keep shucking the bearded clam they'll have tricked the sky pixie into letting them into the great country club of the hereafter?

I don't need to refer to scientific studies or quote passages from scripture in exploring the hangups these raving bigots have in defining sexual orientation as a choice. I only have to consult the single best authority on sexual preference that I know: me. And all I know is that if Brittany Spears and Ricky Martin are on the same stage, gyrating on my TV (which presumably has the "mute" setting engaged) my eyes will be drawn magnetically to the bead of sweat on Ricky Martin's face as it arcs down his sculpted cheek to the impish, upturned corner of his mouth where a flash of his hypnotic smile urges the droplet to the edge of his chiseled jaw where it darts under his chin and down his muscular neck, slowly curving around to the front to finally come to a rest in the hollow at the base of his throat, the whole time his sinewy body undulating like he's going to climax with the explosive force of firecrackers going off inside a stick of dynamite inserted in a cannonball that's in the nose cone of a nuclear missile detonating under a volcano that's on a planet hurtling to the center of a sun that's about to go supernova. And that alone is enough to nullify the most emphatic "choice" argument.


I've seen enough interviews with
Ricky Martin to know it's the only way.


If one is making a choice between options, one is making a conscious decision. I find my attraction to the same sex automatic, unconscious, natural. I think this is why most thinking people find this insistence on "choice" so fundamentally preposterous. Because it doesn't matter if you are attracted to someone of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, or sometimes one and sometimes the other — the attraction itself is not a choice.

Take, for example, the Al Franken Show blog troll "LeftWinger" who once claimed he chose his sexual orientation every minute of every day. Note how he unwittingly proves my point for me in this comment:

If I wanted to, I could sleep with a male, but I have chosen to have intimate relationships with females all of my life. If I wanted to, I could easily sleep with a male at sometime in the future, but I really have no desire to do so.
Posted by LeftWinger at 06.17.2004 09.09 PM

(emphasis added)

His "desire" for the opposite sex prevents him from "choosing" to be attracted to the same sex. Neat how that works out.

Which leads me to why it's funny when one of these love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin hypocrites sits down to pound out a little "choice" screed with one hand while picking bits of salisbury steak out of their facial hair with the other.

If I find sexual preference a natural and automatic process based on my personal experience, I can't help but think that the knuckle-draggers' unwavering insistence that sexual preference is a choice is based on their personal experience. Which can only mean that they feel they must choose that which does not come naturally.



This goes a long way towards explaining the "lady doth protest too much, methinks" behavior exhibited in ostensibly "traditional values" blogs and websites so obsessed with homosexuality that they end up being much more about gays than about "traditional values" ("pastor" DL Fister), the voyeuristic tint of lurid sex descriptions which allows these tortured souls to indulge their fantasies under the pretense of condemning them (A Breaking Wind), and even something as simple as providing web links to graphic images or pornography complete with warnings in order to absolve the author of any responsibility (another one out of the DL Fister playbook).



Ultimately, the more vigorously they complain about homosexuality, the more suspect their protests become.

25 comments:

Carl said...

bead of sweat on Ricky Martin's face

*Shudder*

That continued description makes me want to turn gay...yew git a toaster when Ah does?

Fantod said...

I'm hoping to not have to actually buy any presents for Christmas this year.

not_over_it said...

Ricky Martin is gay?

Fantod said...

As far as I know, he's not (although there are those who think so -- just google "Ricky Martin gay"). I was just trying to describe what I'd be more interested in watching if he and Brittany Spears were on the same stage together. Didn't mean to imply that RM himself is gay.

not_over_it said...

I was just joking because I thought he was. Go figure.

I'm sure he'd "turn" gay for you after that description of his hotness. ;-)

He doesn't do much for me, personally, but to each their own.

eyedoc333 said...

Tonight on the Colbert Report, Stephen was interviewing a fundie congressman from Georgia who spoke against gay adoption. Stephen got the better of him by proposing that gays should not be eligible for driver's licenses because "we don't want our highways 'all gay'd up'"!! LOL!

Fantod said...

NOI, I though you might be, but I couldn't tell for sure!

eyedoc, I saw that -- hilarious! I also liked the "Iraq War: great war or the greatest war?" question and the rube answers, "The Greatest war." Oh, and also how he agrees that now is not the time to question anything Bush does. The boob was an all-around neocon drone bobblehead.

13 Fox said...

Sounds like "Leftwinger" is still in the closet. Anyone who says they "could've" had sex with the same sex is harboring some thoughts and feelings.

Although my opinion is that homosexuality is a choice (because we all have a conscience and we can choose one or the other, despite who we're "attracted to," I disagree with the fanatics and the people holding those signs in the pics.

God doesn't "hate fags." The Bible clearly states that God hates the actions. He hates the lifestyle. But God hates no person he created. If that were the case, he would've only created straight folks.

The people with the signs are just as guilty for judging and altering God's word. Those aren't "Christians" in the pics. They're idiots.

This is one of those subjects that could go either way.

Homosexuality is a choice for some people. The ones who say they "experimented" or are thinking about it.

But others? Like the kid "Johnathan" from Who's The Boss? You can tell that kid was born gay just by watching the old episodes, so perhaps it's a natural thing for a percentage of the homosexual population?

eyedoc333 said...

Repost--(this didn't post the first time):

RV- Can you show me a place in the scriptures that says "G-d hates the gay lifestyle"? I don't recall reading about it in my Old Testament.

If G-d "creates and loves" homosexuals (your words), why would He also demand that they deny their natural instincts and live in celibacy? As a religious person, I just don't see G-d as such a meanie.

It's a "natural thing" for 100% of the gay population. It's hard-wired.

not_over_it said...

RV is almost as full of contradictions as he is of crap!

13 Fox said...

Ok, Mr Technicality. I can see we're gonna have to elaborate to a lower level to accomodate you. But if you're a "religious person," why can't you spell God's name?

Hypocrisy? I believe so. That's probably why you don't know what the Bible says.

First of all, I didn't say God created homosexuals. This is why homosexuality is a choice. It's called Free Will. We were all born with it and some choose sin, rather than prosperity.

Homosexuality is referred to as the sin of sodomy. This reference comes from an account in the Bible of two exceedingly wicked cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, which the Lord destroyed. Sodom was known for its rampant homosexuality and unrestrained sexual lust, as well as other sins such as arrogance, haughtiness, and disregard for the poor. When the Lord sent angels to warn Lot who lived in the city that it was about to be destroyed, the men of the city actually wanted to rape the angels! Genesis 13:13: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Abomination - Abhorrence; disgust.

Why would God condemn a lifestyle if he loved it? The opposite of love is hate. Why would God destroy cities of homosexuals if he loved the lifestyle? The opposite of love is hate.

I know you're not gonna comprehend this because the Bible is deep and requires thought. Also, when I say the Bible clearly states that God hates the lifestyle, I'm referring to the comprehension it requires to see that. You have to read what is written and understand it. Not skim through the Bible and celebrate when it doesn't quote "God hates the lifestyle."

You won't see those exact words. You have to read into it and comprehend the meaning of what is written.

Someone will ask if God destroyed cities of homosexuals then, why won;t he now? Everyone should be able to understand that He won't do that now because Jesus paid the price for our sins. It's not an eye for an eye on earth as it was back then. We'll pay the price when we die if we choose to live condemned lifestyles and choose to reject God.

God created man in his own likeness. He created woman to procreate and to live with man. He did not create homosexuals. He gave us all free will. That means we choose to live for God or against God.

If we sin, we repent and turn away from that sin. We don't continue to live in the sin or live the condemned lifestyle and expect God to be ok with it. That's mocking God. God is not mocked.

I'm sorry if this makes anyone angry at me. I didn't write the Bible, I didn't create God's laws. I just live by them as best I can and share them with others, as directed.

13 Fox said...

I can see not_over_it would rather give off an uneducated opinion, rather than debate intelligently.

Thanks dude, but your 3rd grade garble only makes yourself look like a fool.

eyedoc333 said...

But if you're a "religious person," why can't you spell God's name?

As part of my religious beliefs, I don't spell out the word G-d as a sign of respect. It's not a typo.

You won't see those exact words. You have to read into it and comprehend the meaning of what is written.

Bingo! You've just proven my point on all counts, RV. That is your personal interpretation of the Bible as you read it, not the word of G-d. I need say no more.

KEvronius said...

"....I didn't say God created homosexuals."

the fuck you didn't fuckboy:

"God hates no person he created. If that were the case, he would've only created straight folks."

try reading your own comments sometime....

KEvron

Fantod said...

Republican Vet said...
Sounds like "Leftwinger" is still in the closet. Anyone who says they "could've" had sex with the same sex is harboring some thoughts and feelings.

[...]

This is why homosexuality is a choice. It's called Free Will.


I juxtapose these comments because "LeftWinger" could whinge on and on about Free Will. It was, indeed, the crux of his argument for why he could choose to sleep with the same sex. I think I pretty well explain why this free will argument is bunk and why those who insist on it are suspect of -- at least -- insecurity in their own sexuality.

In fact, here is the "LeftWinger" post in full of which I only quoted a part:

"If I wanted to, I could sleep with a male, but I have chosen to have intimate relationships with females all of my life. If I wanted to, I could easily sleep with a male at sometime in the future, but I really have no desire to do so. But, if I wanted to do so, I have the free will to be able to do it.

If you do not have free will, I am really sorry. I thought you had the ability to choose when you drink a coke, make a phone call, type on the computer, or get involved in a relationship with another person. If you are for some reason unable to not choose whether it is a male or female, I have never heard of a physiological condition that causes that condition. Maybe you could enlighten me?
Posted by LeftWinger at 06.17.2004 09.09 PM"

His second paragraph is nothing more than a red herring of an argument. I may be able to choose to drink a Coke, but I do not have the choice to be thirsty.

Republican Vet said...
I know you're not gonna comprehend this because the Bible is deep and requires thought.


From The dangers of selectively quoting the Bible:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Fundamentalists explain this verse away, saying that it is part of the Old Levitical Holiness Code and is not meant to be taken literally.

But the above verse is just a mere 3 verses before Leviticus 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures which, of course, they do choose to apply literally.

From The Bible and Homosexuality:

First off, the Bible says nothing condemning homosexuality. If this is a shock, it’s because you have been relying on false translations, and biased ministries.

The two major direct mistranslations are:

* “Qadesh” means a male prostitute, often one who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. It is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual."

* “To'ebah” means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food that contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah." A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah."

Any passage that deals with criminal homosexuality is the condemnation of such practices as rape and prostitution. A passage that would say something to the effect of "the practice of Homosexuality/Sodomy is an abomination" is actually "the practice of men prostituting themselves is a condemned practice" to which is usually follows "as they did in the land of (insert Jewish oppressor).

Another mistranslation is in Leviticus 18:22, commonly sited as God’s clear disdain for homosexuality.

The New International Version of the Bible currently translates:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

The New Living Translation widens the translation to also include lesbians:

“Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.”

Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the original Hebrew and render this verse as:

"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean."

That is "ritually unclean" like eating shellfish, getting a tattoo, or wearing synthetic clothing. Such a translation would not sell, as ministers will hold on to their prejudice, and common folk would likely assume that it is a poorly translated Bible, because they have been basing their beliefs on wrong information from the start.

-Lot and the Angels-

A second passage which is usually used as proof of "divine homophobia" is the narrative of the destruction of Sodom, (Sodom was actually not the name of the town, but is the Hebrew word S’dom-burned, thus referring to its fate) the town lending itself to the once scientific and now derogatory term Sodomite and Sodomy - homosexual, and ‘unclean’ sexual acts.

In this little town, (which was really more of a fort that overlooked a trade route) at around the turn of the 4th millennium, God’s wrath at the then current state of mankind was violently expressed. As the men returned from a battle, God decided to warn the few good people of the town, sending two angels to a man called Lot and his family. Now as the strangers entered his dwelling, the Men of the town surrounded the house and demanded that Lot send them out so that they might "know" them. “Know” being the translation for the Hebrew Ya’da - which is used only a handful of times in the Bible to mean ‘conceive‘, and everywhere else to mean ‘know a fact’ - not even remotely sexually. Lot then offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd, to satisfy them (the crowd declines).

It is unclear whether the mob wanted to A) gang rape the angels B) engage in consensual homosexual acts with the angels, maybe start a family together, open a flower shop, that kind of thing, C) interrogate them, or D) beat them to a pulp. ‘B’ is the most unlikely (no matter what many would like the passage to say about gay people) and therefore the passage should not be used to condemn such scenarios, but there are some interesting things to take into consideration about this passage.

The men had just returned from battle, and were therefore on high alert.

Also, back then, the only strangers one was likely to see were enemies from other tribes. With that in consideration, the passage can be examined thus. Two strangers wander into Lots house, the rest of the men surround the house and demand that Lot give up the men to the crowd so they can A) determine whether or not they are spies, B) eliminate the threat they pose C) gang rape them, as was a common practice at the time to humiliate enemies. Trying to protect God’s messengers, Lot offers his daughters, but the crowd- not actually looking for sexual satisfaction- declines.

All in all, this passage can in no way condemn the love between two men. If the crowd did mean to have sex with the angels (they were quite handsome of course), to use the passage in condemning homosexuality would be like taking another passage in the Bible, describing rape of the female sort, and using it to damn heterosexuality -it is absurd. Similarly, God’s distaste for the town, and his destruction to destroy it, preceded the Angels.

13 Fox said...

As I said, none of that was comprehended.

SHEvron. God created mankind. Mankind chooses to be gay. God could've only vreated people who chose to be straight if we didn't have free will.

think next time, fuckboy.

Fantod said...

God created mankind.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created mankind. Everybody knows that.

Mankind chooses to be gay.

Wow. I hope the bars in Boystown are prepared for the increase in traffic.

God could've only vreated people who chose to be straight if we didn't have free will.

I could've only made an omelette if I didn't break any eggs.

thepoetryman said...

God gave us free will, or so the parable goes, but that has little or no bearing on being homosexual or heterosexual.

Born gay or straight there is no amount of free will that can change ones biological design.

If you think God "made" all beings heterosexual then you have not seen much of his lesser known work of art- nature. Yes. That oft maligned, always abused, little known work.

Carl said...

Could this be Pastor Fister?

Carl said...

Republican Vet said...
As I said, none of that was comprehended.

SHEvron. God created mankind. Mankind chooses to be gay. God could've only vreated people who chose to be straight if we didn't have free will.


But we don't.

Or have you forgotten your Ten Commandments?

Or are you saying God is imperfect as he created imperfection?

Which is it, Vet?

Carl said...

eyedoc333 said...
But if you're a "religious person," why can't you spell God's name?

As part of my religious beliefs, I don't spell out the word G-d as a sign of respect. It's not a typo.


Doc, you're Jewish. You're obviously of a heathen faith.

Funny how Vet here doesn't respect your religion, even if his is derived from yours.

Carl said...

not_over_it said...
RV is almost as full of contradictions as he is of crap!


He's Christian, so we forgive him the log in his eye.

By the way, Vet? Before you try going off on me, I'm an ordained minister and have read the KJV cover to cover more times than you've had hot meals.

Your interpretation is not only simplistic and the product of poor church shepherding, but is antithetical to Christ's teachings. You selectively bounce back and forth between the Old Testament and the New, desperately trying to weave a thread.

But Jesus rebelled against the corrupted teachings that grew out of the Torah! That's why he was put to death!

How can YOU use those in ANY argument about Christianity? Or are you saying you're holier than my Lord?

Fantod said...

Carl said...
Could this be Pastor Fister?


LOL! That guy is high on some illicit substance for sure.

"...the Lord who created the Heaven and the Earth and every goddamned thing in between!"

"Fucking-nincom-fucking-poop!"

Parklife said...

Nice to see RV stop by. Back to the usual crazy jibber-jabber. All is not lost.

mina said...

Nice debate you folks...

I believe whether being gay is a natural instinct (which I believe) or a choice, it's nobodies business minding or judging that.

I think we need to rethink our thoughts and be more rational. After all God doesn't write books...Humans do.
And...yeah, "he so presumptuously created humans"...the egg, or the chicken?

Being gay makes you happy? BE GAY!

I think hiding your instincts by taking the "right" choices is what makes the real harm. It's evil and unconsidered to your so chosen "right" partner and to yourself. Because a person who grows in the belief that he doesn't deserve to fulfill his desires will become miserable. What good can misery bring?

I think we all (adults) have the right to desire and feel desired, and if some people find that dirty or wrong is just they are not being honest.

well...that's my point.