Why do people think homosexuality is a choice?

Post Reply New Topic

that's nice. when was the last time a dog said out loud in english that they were ok with it? anything else is not consent.


if you don't understand the difference between a dog and a human, or any other animal and a human, you're not worth arguing with and are just trying to justify being a sick person that likes to abuse animals.

So by that logic any person who is deaf and cannot speak clealy enough to be understood and uses sign language cannot give consent. Or for that matter if yoiu ask someone if they want to have sex and they smile and nod their head up and down they have not given consent either!

This whole idea that, "consent is only given by verbal assent" is a new idea that has cropped up on our college campuses so that legal cases can be resolved more easily and is an outgrowth of the women's feminist movement.

It is a bunch of hooey that only verbal consent is consent. It is a vacuous argument driven by people with an agenda that they want to push by trying to redefine words. I can say yes or no by nodding or shaking my head, and that is giving or denying assent by body language alone.

And here comes the invective again. I am making an argument about communication and you are saying I am "sick". And then you go beyond that to say I like to abuse animals.

You are making an adhominem false argument because you cannot find a logical one. You know nothhing about how I respect and kindly treat animals. I have told you that I am a monogamist heterosexual and subscribe to a moral ethical code which excludes zoosexuality. I am knowledgable about zoosexuality because I have researched it because sexual morals and ethics within our society are in a high state of flux these days.

Society has historically lumped homosexuality and zoosexuality together treating them with the same rejection and the same manner of proscription and punishment. It has only come up in this discussion because the zoosexuals are claiming that there is insignificant difference between the two so both should be accepted. I have related their views/arguments because I believe that engaging in those activities is a choice. You seem to wish to imply that homosexual preference is biologically driven and not a choice but that zoosexuality is not. I have been open to a discussion of if that appearance is true or not.

As for your allusions to rape, I am opposed to rape wheter it be Hetero or Homo, or Zoo; because it is violence. The only reason that this thread has drifted to include questions about zoosexuality is because it seems that most people assume/accept that it is a choice. I have asked if a distinction can be shown that makes Zoosexuality a choice but Homosexuality not a choice. That is a fair question to ask to see what bearing it has on the "title question" of this thread. The arguments put forth in the zoosexual case are disturbingly similar to the arguments put forth in the homosexual case. If a clear distinction cannot be found then if one is allowed or forbidden then the other should be also.

A humanistic viewpoint says that we humans are animals and the Zoosexuals push that point. It was, after all, the Homosexual community that opened the door to comparisons with what humans vs animals do in order to prove that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomena so why not then accept the zoosexuals arguments along the same line when attempting to establish whether or not either orientation/practice is a choice or inborn?

I have looked for a convincing distinction between how these these two orientations arise and am hard pressed to find one that can be firmly argued. The most that I see is that zoosexuality is perceived as a bit more bizzare by most people but what other people think based on an emotional approach is hardly worthy of the definition of a distinction.

Looking for a parallel in one case to illuminate another case is a legitimate avenue of inquiry. I should think that the homosexual community and the Heterosexual community would both have a stake in a clear cut, non emotional rationale for making a distinction, but I do not see one as forthcoming. The right wing bible thumping types who push for the theory of "human exceptionalism" do a better job of drawing the parallel than others do at dismissing it. Yes zoosexuality seems to have a world class YUK factor, but weak arguments, logical falacies and emotional invective are poor persuasion.

Most people would readily accept that zoosexuality is a choice. It is all to easy to draw a rhetorical parallel between Zoosexuality and Homosexuality and alledge that if one is a choice the other is also. The Homosexual community needs to draw a clear rational distinction between the two and I simply do not think that they have done it. I will admit that this is a pretty ICKY argument for believing that homosexuality is a choice but it is one that people will remember because human nature remembers salacious stuff.

now you're just being disingenuous, a dog can't communicate in a yes or no fashion(or head motions, which are purely human lingual shortcuts, and can vary by culture)you brought zoosex into the discussion and now you're dancing around claiming someone else did it. pretty asinine to be honest.

I can only surmise that you do not have much experience with dogs. E.G. Sevral years ago I had a Black Lab/Flat Coated Retriever mix. He was suffering with a serious ear mite infection. He made it very clear to my wife that he was not going let her treat his ears. The task fell to me and since he recognized me as Alpha Male, he showed his disapproval but let me do it anyway. The relief he received was instantaneous. The next night he engaged in very strange behaviour. While I was watching TV he came over to me and placed his head in my lap, that was unusual but I petted him and apparantly that was not his point. He then pressed his head harder and harder down into my lap until his front feet were about to come off the floor. Realizing that he wanted something, it dawned on me what it probably was. I got the ear mite medicne and treatment material and he was fully cooperative compliant and docile while I applied the treatment. He no longer indicated "NO" to the procedure, but he was actually requesting it. Granted, that is possibly the most explicit "YES & NO" behavior that I have seen but not the only one by far and he was not my only dog to demonstrate such behavior. My last dog was also very good at such communication. Their ability to indicate yes and no was about as obvious as a young child. In cases of injury that might be painful both were also able to indicate an emphatic "NO!" by growling and bareing teeth. Dogs are often extremely adept and occasionally rather innovative at such communication. Horses on the other hand are not perhaps as adept and require the handler to be more attentive to horse body language. They will warn by laying their ears back and if you ignore that, woe be unto you if your are where they can kick you.

I believe you are correct, that happened on Page 3 in the 11th post. Where I asserted, And as the link shows, in that culture it is regarded as somewhat normal and has a significant number practitioners among pubescent males, and is at least "accepted" by some of the parents.

I find it hard to fathom how you can make this statement that I am "dancing around" and attributing the zoosexual-homosexual comparisos to someone else.
A.-- I am not dancing around saying someone else did it , at least not in this thread and I have shortly above eplicitely cited where I did so (as if a modicum of effort would not show that to anyone) I introduced it because zoosex is widely seen as a choice ( I myself see it as that) and there are many who do not see it as not all that different from homosexuality. Hence it is a valid answer to the "title question" of this thread: "Why do people see Homosexuality as a Choice". when that question is read literaly! If you do not want them to think that there is little difference between zoo and homo sexualities, then I suggest that you make a strong and credible answer to why there is a difference, using statements that are not readily refutable.
B.-- I would also suggest that thinking that homosexuality is a choice because other sexual behaviors having similarities are seen as being a choice, is a key component in many of the situations in which the "slippery slope"[1] argument is made
----------------------------
[1]
It ought to be noted that a slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy. see the full discussion of this at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

let's see that section again with the bit you left out so it fit your argument
as indicated above, it is both a logical device and a logical fallacy, you're invoking it in a fallacious manner, in addition to cherry picking my sentences to fit your lazy narrative of "gay sex and sex with animals are alike because they both involve choice".

indicating discomfort isn't the same as indicating yes or no, your dog didn't indicate a yes/no answer, just discomfort with his ear. your wife wasn't able to do it because it sounds like she wasn't high enough in the pack for your dog to allow it.

Fugu,
I am pleased to see that you are taking the time to check my references, however the very reason I included that reference was because there is a matter of semantics in what they are saying in the Wikipedia page.

Most people have the idea that a slippery slope argument is an inherent falacy and it is not! But when it is missing a critical piece it can introduce a false notion. In otherwords it is a perfectly honest and acceptable mode of argument when all its necessary pieces are in place. The most ccommonly missing part is the argument must include a "mechanism" as they call it in the wikipedia. Otherwise it fails to produce a defensible result.

You will notice that the article never called a fallacy per se. A fallacy would consistantly produce a logical error. For instance a simple syllogism with a false major premise would be a fallacious form of an argument. or a syllogism without a minor premise is a fallacious form. Many perfectly good logical devices can have a fallacious form if they lack a critical part or havea defective part.

In the mind of the uneducated or at least the portion of the public not trained in logic (ie. most of the public), to call something a slippery slope argument is tantamount to having logically defeated it. However that is not so.

If a slippery slope argument is made and a true mechanism is demonstrated the the argument is true. For instance when U.S. involvment in the Vietnam war started its critics said it was a slippery slope. and the war hawks railed against that argument calling it a "slippery slope argument" as if that proved that the war critics were completely wrong. But indeed it was a slippery slope and the critics of the war made a correct argument because the will and where-with-all to esclate the ware were avaible to the north Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.

It is best if the phrase "slippery slope" would not be thrown around as if it was an automatic fallacy. But screaming "Slippery Slope" seems to be well entrenched as a loaded phrase. A slippery slope argument is a little tricky to use because people have a tendency to forget to show the mechanism. I leave your quote of the Wikipedia page here because not everyone is as dilligent as you to look it up, but I think you confused the term "fallacious form" withthe concept of an "inherent fallacy"! Perhaps our readers will judge that for themselves.

Fugu,
I might accuse you of cherry picking my own phrases but I will not. My selective quoting of fragments is only intended so that readers can see what part of your statements I am responding to. My frequent use of the elipsis (.....) is intended to honestly show that I am pulling out of a larger statement that I believe stands on its own for purposes of discussion. This is to alert the reader that he/she may wish to referene the whole of the statement to see if I have been accurate in isolating a particular point. It is a device inteded for intellectual honesty in parsing thoughts and a flag to the reader to the possible mis apprehension of the thought being addressed.


Fugu, I believe you are misreading my statements, possibly out of somemind set with which you read them. I am not saying that what you impugn as my "lazy narritive" is that I am saying that "gay sex and sex with animals are alike because they both involve choice" You have got my objective backwards and off the mark at the same time.

What I am saying is that
-- because people see parallels between Zoo- and Homo- Sexualities and
-- because Zoosexuals strongly claim those perceptions are accurate, and
-- most people believe zoosexuality is a choice
Then many of those people believe that homosexually is also a choice.

That is the thought pattern I described in order to add an additional answer to "Why Do People Think Homosexuality Is A Choice". You have gotten my explanation exactly in reverse ! I have been trying to show why people believe Homosexuality is a choice and not that Homosexuality and Zoosexuality are the same! In order to do that I did have to show examples of where people claim there are parallels. If you wish to defeat their conclusion, then it would behoove you to show that the claimed parallels are not parallels at all. But from what my research has shown me a lot of people believe in those parallels and definitely the zoosexual community do, and that is probably biased by their desire to ride the coat tails of the homosexual movement into a degree of acceptance if not outright approval.

ok, i think i'm done as you're just retreading the same weak flawed argument.

To whom it may concern and Fugu,
The above attribution to me in the quote is entirely inaccurate! Those are not my words I have made several repeated searches of this entir thread and the above use of the word idiotic is the first occurance I could find in all 5 pages to date. I assiduously strive to avoid invective or derogatory epithets. But I will assume that to be Fugu's statement and an accidental misattribution.

As to me just retreading the same argument, I think I put forward several, but I sense that one in particular was a "burr under your blanket" What you call retreading I call rewording/reiterating in hopes that you or others would see the point I was making as you seemed to consistantly misconstrue the each wording I proffered. I suspect that your are so certain that I was saying what I was not, that you were not grasping what I was really saying, for which reason you saw it as weak/flawed, I really think you were working from preconception of the concepts I was comparing, or just really did not like the conclusions that you thought I necessarily implied, instead of my persistant quest to offer reasonable explanations for how people arrive at their position on the "title question".

This has been an interesting exchange as we obviously are exercising different reasoning processes and modes of expression. We also probably make a different assessment of the course of social change in this society and its history and import for the future.

I wish you well. Adieu.
Outlander

ikr? Who would choose to be gay lmao

I think it's because heterosexuals are incapable of understanding what it is some people find attractive about the same gender and male + female couples are dominant in every society and are needed in order to create babies.

So basically they think because homosexuality and bisexuality are less common and less acceptable than heterosexuality then that must mean the person is making the choice to be gay because to them it makes more sense to be heterosexual since that is what is always regarded as "normal". Maybe they also can't understand why anybody would be a certain way that subjects them to homophobia and scorn from certain religions?

It could have to do with religion

Politics

Misconception

It is hard to fancy , that if homosexuality were a choice, many people would choose it

With homophobia

This whole thred is an exercise in semantics and how different people regard the use of words. Please consider the following:

Did you ever think about taking something that was not yours..........?
No? Then you are not a thief!
Yes? Then you are a thief!

Did you ever think about killing someone because they were an inconvenience or you just did not like them for some reason?
No? Then you are not a murder!
Yes? Then you are a murder!

Did you ever think about driving over the speed limit (not counting emergency circumstances) ?
No? Then you are not a scofflaw driver!
Yes? Then you are a scofflaw driver!

Did you ever regard some else with as much regard and care for their well being with a regard equal or even greater as you have for yourself and seek their interests as much or more as you seek your own?
Never for anyone? Then you are not a lover!
Yes for at least one? Then you are a lover!

Did you ever by subterfuge or force or arms, take money that was not yours from a bank?
No? Then you are not a bank robber!
Yes? Then you are a bank robber!

Are you a person who needed transportation and who has chosen and followed instruction to learn how to safely and legally operate an automobile (truck, motorcycle, etc.) and obtained the necessary license and insurance, etc. And do you comply with what you have been instructed in these matters?
No? Then you are an irresponsible vehicle operator!
Yes? then you are a responsible vehicle operator

If you have not gotten the point by now I understand why I cannot explain to you the answer to the question,"Why do people think homosexuality is a choice?"

Now before you think to accuse me of imposing my value system on anyone else (i.e. is homosexuality a societal good or evil). Please consider that the mythical Robin Hood, (be his deeds good or bad), Robin Hood was unquestionably a THIEF! The Nazis who expropriated the wealth and possessions lands lives,etc. of the Jews, Romas, et.al were nevertheless genocidal thieves, and murders by cause of their actions, and not because of being born that way! Notably the Nazi's engaged in what they did because they were taught that those actions were right and just, (insanely perverted at that was!).

I admonish you not to resort to the rhetorical falsehood of saying that I have placed homosexuals in the same category as Nazis (who it should be noted, similarly persecuted homosexuals as the other groups that I noted the Nazis disfavored).

So then, simply put, those of us who think that homosexuality is a choice, could be fairly understood as being in some sense classified as "behaviorists", Which is to say one is defined by their behavior. and hence my neighbor who does not take my stuff, and does not kill people for his own preference of solutions, nor has sex with animals, and does not by force of arms or subterfuge take the money of others from the bank, nor flies an airplane is neither a thief nor murderer nor zoosexual nor bank robber nor pilot! And my neighbors who build with brick and stone or repairs machinery, or installs wire and switches and lights or worships at the synagog or mosque are masons, mechanics, electricians or jews or muslims.

Because family, society, religion, friends taught them homophobia

If homosexuality was not a choice, then nobody could be blamed for it

Logically

But homophobia is not logical

Precious lil "people" were taught homophobia is a choice

That way they could justify their financially expensive conversion therapy


That way, homophobic precious lil "people" could justify feeling and acting morally superior to, LGBT people

Because I decided I wanted to date men only and if I want to have kids, I need to date guys. Yeah I know about fertility and adoption but I full well know places are not going to adopt to homo couples due to homophobia. And egg implanted and suffragette mothers are expensive. Maybe this is why people think being gay is a choice? They don't realize sexuality is not based on who you choose to date, it's about who you are sexually attracted to. If I decided to date women but I won't f**k them and our relationships are just like a friendship, it would not be because I am asexual, it's because I am not a lesbian nor bisexual. I would still be straight if I date a woman.

I want to say just because someone thinks homosexuality is a choice does not men they are against homosexuality. They may totally be fine with it and not care who people date. I think there is a difference between homophobia and ignorance. Thinking being gay is a choice is just ignorance. Being gay is not the same as who you choose to date. Who you choose to date does not change your sexual orientation. Me dating another woman would not make me a lesbian. Why? Because you cannot choose your sexual orientation.