SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Texas Republicans have decided on a platform that includes abolishing minimum wage, cancelling climate research, banning the teaching of evolution at schools, and repealing the voting rights act, among other things, but hilariously (or depressingly) the one thing on this laundry list that people are angry about is their plan to "rehabilitate" homosexuals, a practice that many say is harmful.
BBC News has more: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27774102
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Texas Republicans Adopt Extremely Controversial Platform
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 143 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Your lucky number is 3552664958674928. Watch for it everywhere.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @11:05PM
I'd like to ask each and every one of the people involved in trying to get this passed to give a detailed answer about the specific day in their lives that they decided to be hetero.
The idea that sexual preference is not a choice just lets the bigots dictate the terms of the discussion.
Maybe it is more convenient to argue that one is just "born that way," but it is not true. Sexuality is a spectrum (see the kinsey scale [wikipedia.org] for an example of one of the earliest and most crude attempts to define it). So while there certainly are some people who are 100% straight and 100% gay, the reality is that many people inhabit various gray areas on the spectrum for a variety of physiological, emotional and mental reasons. [scientificamerican.com] Reasons that aren't even necessarily constant through out their lives either.
The only moral position to take is that someone's sexual preference is nobody else's god damn business.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Monday June 09 2014, @11:20PM
It isn't, actually. I don't have the research in front of me right now but there is plenty of work showing that the mass of a certain region of the brain is directly related to the sexual orientation of the person. Part of the reason this research is on-going is to determine what sort of psychological damage can be caused to a transgendered person who isn't allowed to 'be themseleves', so to speak. Some of the conclusions during that work are shedding light on the homosexual community as well.
This isn't a matter of debate-style convenience. If people are born that way not only can they not be 'rehabilitated', they also should NOT be.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @11:44PM
It isn't, actually. I don't have the research in front of me right now but there is plenty of work showing that the mass of a certain region of the brain is directly related to the sexual orientation of the person.
Actually you do have it right in front of you because I just linked to it - the region is called INAH3. Read the link, it is a lot more complicated of a relationship that you are making it out to be.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Monday June 09 2014, @11:57PM
I did actually, and it's not supporting your point. Basically the article says: "There are quite a few biological reasons whe some people are gay, but the brain changes and that was proven by taxi drivers growing more 'do-my-job' gray matter."
You're right, it is complicated, but not in a way that makes those who are against mistreatment of homosexuals bigoted.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:11AM
not in a way that makes those who are against mistreatment of homosexuals bigoted.
That is a really messed up way to mis-state my point.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:13AM
"The idea that sexual preference is not a choice just lets the bigots dictate the terms of the discussion."
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:31AM
The point is that if you reduce it to something that is biologically predetermined then you are implicitly saying that for people who do choose (e.g. every bisexual person ever) that there is still a right choice and a wrong choice. That the person who "experimented in college" is a sinner. That "waist up lesbians" are immoral. etc.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:49AM
That's a stretch. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' being pointed out in that argument. It simply an explanation of the origins of the behaviour that has a direct impact on how altering said behaviour would have to happen, or even if it should. It does not attack bisexuals in any way, other than some making an assertion that the word 'curious' means "I'm a hetero who wants to try out gay stuff!"
I suppose you're right that somebody will try to make that argument, but if they really understand what they're talking about they have a heck of an uphill battle.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:57AM
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' being pointed out in that argument.
Of course there is, the argument for about three decades has gone like this:
bigots: Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and you are choosing to sin
gays: It isn't a sin because god made me this way
It isn't an explanation, it's a defense in an argument defined by the bigots. If the bigots weren't attacking gay rights as a choice the whole idea of it not being a choice would never have become such a popular meme. Anytime someone says, "when did you choose to be straight?" they are rebutting the argument that being gay is a choice.
Compare it to racism, nobody ever argues that being black is a choice and thus no one ever says "when did you chose to be white?"
If you go back to the 70s, even the gay rights people referred to it as a lifestyle [thewrap.com] because the bigots had not yet settled on "choosing to sin" for their central argument.
The one thing both sides do agree on is that choice/not-a-choice is the shape of the modern gay-rights debate. The idea that choice/not-a-choice is irrelevant has been a minority opinion because people have thought it was a lot easier to get the religious bigots to agree with their god than it is to get them to agree with a purely secular argument.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:54AM
The reason it's an explanation and not an argument is that it means that no form of rehabilitation will, and I'm using quotes for this on purpose, 'cure' them.
"Compare it to racism, nobody ever argues that being black is a choice and thus no one ever says "when did you chose to be white?""
No, instead they pull up statistics about the incarceration rates of certain groups of people and say things I will not repeat. They can't make the choice argument and ... well, guess what, we're not segregated anymore.
"If you go back to the 70s, even the gay rights people referred to it as a lifestyle because the bigots had not yet settled on "choosing to sin" for their central argument."
Actually they chose it to soften the journey of coming out of the closet. Only two decades before there were people claiming that homosexuality was the root cause of child molestation. By the 70's that calmed down and now it was time for people to start coming out and telling their family. Which sounds better, "Oh it's a lifestyle" ... the same way you'd describe city-living to a country-bumpkin, or "well I was born this way" and end up taking a trip to the hospital to be 'cured'? I'll put it another way: Back in the twenties a rather large portion of the United States would have identified themselves as gay. Think about it.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:58PM
The reason it's an explanation and not an argument is that it means that no form of rehabilitation will, and I'm using quotes for this on purpose, 'cure' them.
I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse so this is the last response I will make. The gay rights debate is much larger than the question of rehabilitation. That's only one small corner of it, but the "born this way" argument is used as a defense in all cases.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday June 11 2014, @03:33AM
Obtuse? Consistent! Go read my first post and then my last post, I was responding directly to the rehabilitation debate! You're trying to make it sound like they're trying to stand on both sides of the fence and that is plainly not true. What is true is that for most of the issues brought up in the debate, why it happens is important. If you have an issue with that then I suggest you start getting specific.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:44PM
republican views:
1) "its icky!"
2) what we were tought about god, says this is wrong
#1 is none of your business. I find it 'icky' also (I'm straight) but I would NEVER tell someone else how to live wrt to relationships. if I don't see it, I don't care and you have every right to do what you think is right for YOU.
#2 is pure bullshit and a non-issue for anyone in the modern age. hiding behind bronze-age fairy stories should never be a reason to deprive others of their rights and pursuit of happiness.
the republicans are on thin ice, here. the younger generation already has rejected this 'its against god!' argument and they are also ok with #1, in a live-and-let-live kind of way.
if the R's don't do an about-face soon, they will be completely irrelevant. then again, that's not such a bad thing - maybe we should let them destroy their own party. perhaps something good can come from its rebirth.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:52PM
I think you're missing the point that the haters are mostly creationist christians who believe "biologically predetermined" = God made the decision not them.
Then step two of this strategy resembles my favorite scene from Bladerunner, the intro, you know the one with the HR drone interviewing the applicant / replicant?
"Yes. You're in a city, walking along the street when all of a sudden you look at the bathhouse and see a..."
"What city?"
"Doesn't make any difference what city... its completely hypothetical."
"But how come I'd be there?"
"Maybe you're fed up, maybe you want to be by yourself...who knows. So you look at the bathhouse sundeck and see Father God and Holy Jesus have created a gay."
"The gay that our Holy Father God and Sweet Baby Jesus created lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun... But you're hating it."
Leon's upper lip is quivering.
"Whatya means, I'm hating?"
"I mean you're hating! Why is that, Leon? Why do you hate the creation of our Holy Father God and his son Sweet Baby Jesus in violation of his word and disrespect of his actions? Are you implying you know better what is right and what is wrong than your own all knowing and all powerful creator, the same creator who created that gay? Are you implying you're better and more powerful than your own Holy Father?"
This has the obvious tasty analogy of the fictional replicant and the "real world" neocon both being somewhat subhuman, into gunplay and murder, a little slow in the head, angry and antisocial... its really a very good analogy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ArhcAngel on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:56AM
The reason the research is hard to find is that right after it was trotted out and heralded as proof sexual orientation was not a choice potential parents began having their unborn children tested for the gene supposedly responsible for this mutation so they could decide whether to abort or not. And the fact the brains used in the study were all from HIV + individuals cast a shadow on whether the area of the brain might have been affected by the disease or not. It also opened the door to the idea that if orientation is biological in nature why can't other conditions such as pedophilia, or rapists. There is strong evidence to suggest these conditions are genetically motivated as well.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @03:21AM
Ugh. There is SOOOO much wrong with what you wrote. For one thing, the link I already posted addressed the question of whether HIV affected INAH3 (later studies showed that it does not). But even the original researcher who found the INAH3 differences explicitly warned that there was nothing to indicate whether it was a cause or an effect of sexual orientation. Also, no such biological difference has been found in lesbians. Furthermore all that was in ~1980.
The "gay gene" (Xq28) [wikipedia.org] entered pop culture in 1993 and it was far from definitive - it influences but does not define sexual orientation. At the time thee researcher who found it estimated it plays a role in 5 to 30% of gay men. Much more recent studies suggests that it contributes about 40% to gay male sexual orientation. But those two numbers aren't comparable, nor are they black and white. Sexual orientation isn't simply just straight or gay (for proof just look at how many gay men have fathered children). And finally there is no current pre-natal test for Xq28 - nobody has been using it to abort gay fetuses. [ibtimes.com]
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by MozeeToby on Tuesday June 10 2014, @05:53AM
Pedophiles are significantly more likely to have experienced a head injury at the age that they are attracted to as adults. I.e. a pedophile who is attracted to 5 year olds is statistically likely to have had a head injury when they were 5 years old. There is all kinds of evidence that pedophilia is a function of brain impairment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @04:49PM
I.e. a pedophile who is attracted to 5 year olds is statistically likely to have had a head injury when they were 5 years old.
Dude, why are you making that up?
Yes, there seems to be a correlation between pedophilia and childhood brain injuries. [discovery.com]
No, there is nothing to suggest that the specific age of injury influences the age that the pedophile is attracted to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10 2014, @10:15AM
Whether or not gay people are born 'that way' is completely irrelevant. I know for a fact that I'm not born 'that way'. Actually I enjoy having sex with all genders / gender identities. As far as I can see it has something to do with the fact that I'm kind of a 'two spirited' person. My genitals are male, but I'm not a man's man at all. My mind is somewhere in between. I also don't like the stereotypical 'gay scene' where apparently you have to talk in a overly effeminate voice and be ehm.. flamboyant. Luckily many gays I know aren't like that. Anyway I do have sympathy for the gays who feel the urge to express themselves and make a statement. I'm just not one of them.
The essential point in all of this is that those bigots from Texas are either retarded and / or seriously mentally ill. They do not accept scientific fact. They do not see that other persons are not themselves. It should not be anybody's business at all what I'm doing in the bedroom or with whom I have a relationship. As long as it is with consenting adults, of course. Otherwise it would already be covered by law (rape, sex with minors - persons doing that are mentally ill too and should be treated for it).
People must be free to do anything they want in the constraints of their society's laws. There is nothing wrong with having sex with the same gender. It's a physical act that gives a good feeling, just like sports and eating.
People must also be free not to have sex with the same gender. But people must not ever be free to say with whom I can have sex or not. This is a crime (discrimination, taking away one's freedom, etc. ).
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday June 10 2014, @11:59AM
> The only moral position to take is that someone's sexual preference is nobody else's god damn business.
Yes, I don't care whether it's genetic, upbringing, chemicals, or a choice. It's certainly none of the goverment's business.
I'm basically straight but I want the right to have sex with other men should I chose to do so (e.g. as a favour to a friend, or for money from a stranger), as a matter of principle.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 10 2014, @12:25PM
"The only moral position to take is that someone's sexual preference is nobody else's god damn business."
From an empathy perspective I'd disagree strongly in that its better for friends family and coworkers if they're happy, and if they're happy I'm happy, so to a level that's socially acceptable I should always interact with them to help them be happy.
Note there's a difference between helping out and being a jerk. Lesbian at work not too happy about not being able to get married; the jerk solution is trying to pray her gay away. I butt into her lifestyle by gladly signing her meaningless petitions, not because they'll ever change anything but because she's real happy when I sign them and I wish her luck and I high five her. Personally I don't care if chix can marry each other, but it makes her happy, so I know its the right thing to do.