Thursday, January 15, 2009

The Problem with Believing Gay is a Choice

Well, I finally figured out why the Prop 8ers are in such a tizzy over the "gay lifestyle": they believe it's a choice. If you believe gay is a choice, then you must necessarily believe that your own children might "choose" it. If gay is the thing you hate most in life, that must be terrifying. (Hatred and fear as a child-rearing strategy- nice.)

Before we get into the ridiculous diatribe that motivated this post, I would like to point out: who the hell would choose to be gay in this day and age? Who chooses to be the object of hatred and discrimination? Who chooses a lifestyle that guarantees they, at some point, will not get the job, not get the apartment, will be screamed at, the victim of violence, and perhaps even murdered?

Ooooh, that sounds like fun, where can I sign up?

Is Interracial Marriage the Same Type of Issue as Gay Marriage? Apparently, the bigotsphere (thanks, [censored]) has noticed that they are being called on the fact that the arguments against gay marriage are exactly the same as the arguments against interracial marriage (miscegenation, for you nonhistory buffs).

Here are the four main arguments used in late 1800s and early 1900s to pass miscegenation laws:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government. Sound familiar?

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage. That definitely should sound familiar.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, It's eerie how familiar that sounds

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural." Wow, it's uncanny.

Tell me, bigotsphere, how are your arguments any different?

This seems to be the big 20% bigger! new argument out there now. Advocates of same-sex marriage are claiming that forbidding homosexual couples that's a Freudian slip if I ever heard one is just like the discriminatory laws that didn’t allow interracial marriages. it is, see above.
I can see where this argument is coming from, at least. I still don’t think it’s the same thing, however, and here’s why. watch in amazement at what passes for logic in the bigotsphere:

People of different races are all the same on the inside. Genetically, there is no difference between a black man and a white woman. They are the same.

stop right there. clearly, you do not understand genetics. at all. probably not your fault, i'm guessing parochial school or homeschooling, so i'll help you out. there is a difference between a black man and a white woman: a little thing called a Y chromosome. Considering how obsessed you are with gender and marriage, i would have thought you'd know all about Y chromosomes. Also, there is a tiny genetic difference between whites and blacks, hence the different skin tone. There's also a genetic difference between people with blue and people with brown eyes, and well, everyone.

Our discrimination laws originated to prevent us from discriminating against someone on the basis of their outward appearance: gender, age, race. nice of you to leave out the other ones. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. age isn't addressed at all. race, color and sex are (usually) outward, but what about religon or national origin? Clearly Title VII is concerned with a little more than outward appearance. Proscribing interracial marriage was based on the outward appearance, i call it bigotry, or racism, but whatever. but there was no reason to forbid those people to marry. nice of you to grant them that. what about the fact that the reasons given for not allowing interracial couples to marry are exactly the same as those given for not allowing gays to marry?

Same-sex couples, however, are a different matter. what, that they fight for civil rights allows you to endlessly think about gay sex? oddly, i never think about gay sex. There is an obvious genetic difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples - two women or two men are not the same as one woman and one man.

i don't know whether to laugh or cry. couples always have genetic differences, unless they're identical twins, and that's a whole 'nother set of issues. i think what the poster is trying to say is that XX+XY =/= XX+XX or XY+XY. And? Ooh, and just for fun, what about these other choices:


where do we stand on those?

We’ll also have to get back into why people are gay, here: is it choice, or is it a genetic abnormality? how about the third option, it is genetic, but it's not an "abnormality". I dare you to go find the parent of an autistic child and ask them how their "genetically abnormal" child is coming along.

If it is choice, then these couples are choosing an alternative lifestyle. They are choosing to deviate from what society considers normal. so does everyone in one way or another. if you like books more than tv, you are deviating from the societal norms. so what? People are free to choose to live alternative lifestyles, but they do have to live with the consequences. this is going to end up in "they all get AIDS. AIDS!!!!" isn't it? Americans don’t seem to like the fact that their actions have consequences, especially when those consequences are negative. That’s why we’re in this economic crisis. It is not any one individual’s fault; Americans chose to overspend, banks overextended themselves, and no one was prepared for the consequences. what the fuck does that have to do with gay marriage?

So when a gay couple has a relationship, what are some of the consequences? they end up hating each other just like hetero couples and get divorced? Well, they can’t procreate, for starters. not with each other, but as far as i know, gay sperm and gay eggs work the same as "normal" sperm and eggs. two words: turkey baster. Gay couples have higher rates of STDs, including AIDS. you need to give me a link if you want to sell that one here, asshat. just because the preacher told you so is not scientific evidence.

Gay couples tend to be less stable. And, up until recently, they were not allowed to marry. gee, i wonder if those two sentences are related . . . here's the definition of "irony", asshat. (and i'm not allowing that gay couples are less stable. just a link, that's all i want.)

When they made the choice to live that lifestyle, they were aware of that consequence. duh. Is it good for society as a whole to let gay couples get married, to teach our children that homosexuality is equal to hetersexuality, to perpetuate a condition that is, at heart, an aberration from the norm?

and here's what's freaking this asshat out the most: his/her children might end up being Teh Gay, because we all know that if children see Teh Gay, even once, just for a second, they end up being Teh Gay. And then all the other parents at his/her church group will call him/her a bad parent. the end.

Assuming that it is a chosen behavior, why are we assuming that again? do you have evidence of this? the more we teach our small children about how great and wonderful homosexuality is, the more people will choose it. what school is that going on in? i want to send my nieces and nephews there. Eventually, society dies out when its population growth declines too far. ah, the racist Demographic Winter. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are being overrun by the Latino Catholics. The world will end. we'll all drown in a sea of tortillas and frijoles refritos and papal decrees.

What if we argue instead that people are not gay by choice, but that it is a genetic tendency and we shouldn’t “punish” them for being made that way by forbidding them to marry? wow, welcome to my side. cookie? This goes back to the interracial marriage argument - if these couples are genetically different WE'RE. ALL. GENETICALLY. DIFFERENT., genetically “flawed” and when did different become flawed, again? according to mainstream society no, according to bigots. don't involve me in your hatred. because of their homosexual tendencies, then they are not genetically equal to a heterosexual couple. wow, that was quite the logical leap. A to Q with no steps inbetween. They are not the same, and do not merit the same privileges. separate and unequal, huh? Marriage isn’t just about a couple who love each other; it is a societal contract. designed to pass wealth and property from one generation to the next. Marriages are about more than declaring one’s love for one’s spouse to the world; it is a bond that declares you are responsible for one another, you are responsible for your children, and you acknowledge your children as your own. so deliberately or unfortunately childless couples should not be allowed to marry? nice. Marriages were created to organize families, not to validate lovers’ feelings. no, marriages were designed to pass wealth and property from one generation to the next.

look out, it's a slippery slope!

If we allow same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is discriminatory to prevent any two people who love each other from getting married, then it is only one more step to incest. no, it's not. that's offensive. we do not allow incest because of the severe genetic disorders it causes. See: Hemophilia in the Royal Family. It is only one more step to legalizing marrying children who are too young to be married. again, no it's not. allowing two consenting adults to marry is not the same as allowing a child to young to form consent to be married to an adult. Beyond that, it is only one step further to legalizing polygamy. I actually don't have a problem with polygamy, if it is purely between consenting adults, but it's a long leap from TWO CONSENTING ADULTS to EVERYONE IN THE VILLAGE. After all, these people all just love each other, right? What’s wrong with that? if you don't see the difference, you scare me.

What’s wrong with that, is that gay marriage, incest, child marriages, and polygamy, are not good for society. one of these things is not like the other. They are bad for society because of their effects on the gene pool, and they are bad for society because of their social effects. When we tear down the traditional family, we tear down the last place our children are safe from the world. from incest and child marriage and plural marriage, oh my! By making marriage all about the couple and forgetting about the children, as society has been doing for the last several decades, we wound our children terribly. Look at divorce rates; look at fatherless children; look at gang violence; look at teenage promiscuity and teenage pregnancy rates. because in 1950, there was no violence, no absent fathers, no teens having sex and getting pregnant. my mother was born in 1941, 7 months after her parents married. she weighed over 8lbs. uh huh.

All these things are on the rise, because we’ve become selfish as a society. its Teh Gayz fault! Blame it all on Teh Gayz. or black people. whatever. We are all about Me, My, Mine. your the one getting all worked up about other peoples' marriages. Marriage ought to be about creating a home for our families, not about personal gratification. i expect an orgasm or two. Perhaps there would be less adultery if we stopped to remember that - it’s not just about meeting an individual’s sexual needs (or, more often, wants). It’s about providing security for each other, providing emotional support, providing a refuge, a safe haven. i think we're seeing a personal problem here. what the hell does adultery have to do with gay marriage? It’s about responsibility. It’s about providing a safe place for children to grow up, taking care of their needs, until they are ready to go out into the world. straight, out into the world straight! And as much as they may want to, two moms or two dads will never be equal to a mom and a dad in their abilities to raise a child. yeah, you never met my dad. one half of a mom would have been equal to him.

next up: why atheists are destroying the poster's efforts to learn chinese.


  1. I'm still trying to reconcile "Genetically, there is no difference between a black man and a white woman" with "There is an obvious genetic difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples". Apparently A=B, but A+A or B+B do not equal A+B. It's been a long time since I took algebra, but that don't seem right.

    I've heard it hypothesized that at least some who claim that homosexuality is a "choice" do so because they struggle with homosexual or bisexual desires; i.e., they assume it is natural to be tempted by same-sex relations, and that their resistance to that temptation is some sort of personal or moral triumph that teh gayz should aspire to.

  2. actually, that makes a great deal of sense to me. if you choose to repress your own desires and be miserable, (a) you assume everyone else can and should, and (b) it probably pisses you off to watch other people being happy and fulfilled, like you could be, if you just had the nerve.

    honestly, these people spend way too much time thinking about whose genitals are going where.

  3. Thank you so much. My God, I needed to read this so bad.

    I've just spent the last three days arguing against a cave of bigots at this website:

    They used the exact same arguments against me, which I debunked, but apparently logic isn't good enough for them.

    Particularly, I was in an argument about this line of thought:

    If we allow same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is discriminatory to prevent any two people who love each other from getting married, then it is only one more step to incest. no, it's not. that's offensive. we do not allow incest because of the severe genetic disorders it causes. See: Hemophilia in the Royal Family. It is only one more step to legalizing marrying children who are too young to be married. again, no it's not. allowing two consenting adults to marry is not the same as allowing a child to young to form consent to be married to an adult. Beyond that, it is only one step further to legalizing polygamy. I actually don't have a problem with polygamy, if it is purely between consenting adults, but it's a long leap from TWO CONSENTING ADULTS to EVERYONE IN THE VILLAGE. After all, these people all just love each other, right? What’s wrong with that? if you don't see the difference, you scare me.

    I argued that it is a logical fallacy to assume that incestual marriage, goat marriage etc will be allowed when gay marriage is (they should note that by that logic allowing straight marriage brings everyone a step closer to incestual marriage).

    Despite the above two points, I went on to actually use the Netherlands as an example of how allowing gay marriage hasn't brought on a tide of incestual, polygamist marriages - and as such is proof against the logical fallacy that such black holes will open up if gay marriage is allowed.

    The thing is, no matter what I said, no matter how logical I was, it wasn't good enough for them.

    I eventually gave up, because their minds are fixed, no matter which method I used to debunk their theories.

  4. I saw you there! Yeah, I prefer to lambaste them on my own blog, it's more fun that way.

    By the way, pearl diver has a poem on her front page, written by a feminist poet from Canada who lived in the late 1800s to early 1900s, who adopted a daughter AS A SINGLE PARENT.

    So, those asshats can say "oh, we love the gays, we just can't let them hurt the children by depriving them of mommies AND daddies", but that proves definitively that (a) pearl diver didn't bother to do any research or (b) she's a homophobe. Actually, I think it's both, but whatever.

  5. i hate these arguments. for an intensely personal reason.
    i appear to most of the world to be a white woman (i cherokee, but i now LOOK white). my guym who i have been with for almost 5 years and whom i will marry whenever he stops overdrafting every week, is a black man.
    and i know DAMNED well that these same bigoted fucks who oppose gay marriage would, if they COULD,oppose *MY* future marriage because it is "interracial". plus, porphyria = no babies.
    seriously, they need to stop, and read the first amendment, and apply it. arguments about religion, religious beliefs and religious "don'ts" (like not marrying your ex-husband's brother or whatever" have NO PLACE in the public discourse. all of the anti-gay-marriage arguments boil down to "but our god said that it's wrong!" - and those arguments are INVALID in this country.
    or would be, if the fucking government followed the Constitution.
    (mini-rant, sorry, i'm depressed. now would be a good time for those cookies :D )
    i haven't been by here for a few days, and man i really really missed your snarky logic.

  6. I knew an NA with light green eyes and red hair and freckles. It was like someone superimposed irish coloring over stereotypically navajo features. Odd, that.

    Pearl just needs someone less than her so she can feel like more. I imagine the level of arrogance necessary to say that all 6,000,000,000 people in the world must be exactly like her, and every other choice is immature, selfish and wrong. Amazing.

  7. i wish i could cast Pearl before the swines...

    ouch. sorry. horrible pun.

    my hair is about half red and half black, all on its own. i haven't dyed my hair in... 6 years? something like. i was funny looking as a kid, my hair being as it is plus being REALLY dark. now, because of the porphyria, i almost glow in the dark. but other than skin i LOOK cherokee. except that most people still just assume i'm white. when i'm beige, damnit!

    also, sorry for all the typos in the first comment. i COULD preview, but i am lazy.

  8. typos are fine until you piss me off ;) I'm crazy white, too. Literally almost white- and vitamin d deficient. That surprised my doctor for some reason. Half black, half red? As a kid that no doubt sucked, but I would love that! I'm half brown, half grey.

    Btw, according to a pakistani I know, I would be traffic stopping in Pakistan. Not worth the whole burqa thing, but still ...

  9. really - i have copper strands of hair and black strands of hair, about half and half. so yeah, i think its cool *now*.
    i also have crazy long hair (halfway down my thighs) and so it's almost patterned. almost. Pete likes to try and braid my hair by color.

    if i am remembering the right country laws, in Pakistan you don't have to wear a burka unless you are Muslim.
    i know that in Saudi, visiting women don't HAVE to wear burka/veil/etc. but if they don't and they get spray-painted by mullahs or attacked or whatever, no one cares. maybe pakisatan is like that.
    but you are saying your friend says you are hot - i assume because of how pale you are (i can make no judgement on your relative hotness, at least your relative physical hotness, because i have never seen you. but, i do admit on my LJ that i have a massive GirlCrush on you. i think that the way you *write* is hot). i have heard this before... Pete and i want to visit Japan, and people we know who have been there constantly warn us of the racism; apparently many asian countries really think white people are *better* than asian people and that black people are *worse* than asian people - so Pete and i traveling (because i look white and because he is black) might not be safe. and this is apparently true even if i somehow tan and look fully cherokee again - there is an apparent asian belief that native america is exactly the same as white. maybe because they don't really see NAs, or maybe because they only see people who are partly NA and who look white (like myself and your friend that you referenced above)?
    i have to admit... it kinda worries me. i've long wanted to make a trip to Etheopia, and look at stuff left over from the Axum Empire - but i cannot image making that sort of trip without Pete, and the stories i have heard about biracial couples is, if anything, worse in Africa than what happens in the ME.
    maybe i could spray-paint myself? would a fake (spay-on) tan do it, you think? i've never tried one.

    i'm babbling at this point, i think. you are very easy to chat with!

  10. i think the combination of very delicate build (i'm 5 lbs away from looking like mr. burns), extremely pale skin and dark eyes/hair is some sort of ideal in certain countries. oh, and my "doesn't resemble a ski slope" nose is actually attractive in some places! who knew?

    yeah, i worry about traveling abroad not because of interracial stuff, hubby's as italian as i am, but because of USian stuff. Obama has helped, but i think the whole world pretty much hates us.

    i never thought how japanese might see NAs. no offense, but unless an NA has a LOT of white in them, i can tell. maybe because of my NA friends. (for some reason, there's a lot of NAs in Indiana. no reservation, just a bunch of NAs.)

    babble away. i like listening to people, especially people with different backgrounds/experiences/ideas. if there is a hell, in my view, it's that everyone is exactly the same. boring sameness for all eternity.

  11. Hell is the utopia from "A Wrinkle in Time"...?

  12. the only thing i can remember from that is tesseracts. oh, and one of the madeline l'engle books had a cover with a girl riding a pegasus, hair streaming in the wind.

  13. Meg? Charles Wallace? IT? Get thee to the library, woman! It's even better to read as an adult.

  14. meg was the teenage sister, charles wallace was the supergenius little brother with the mitochondrial disorder and IT was a cherubim, yes? it's coming back to me.

  15. i guess you will spot me easily, then :)

    i agree on the hell you describe, except it will ALSO be the "utopia" from Wrinkle in Time and will ALSO incessently play disco. bad disco. as Musak.

    he's right, totally worth a re-read. the whole series, even.


Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at