Politifact says it's not a choice

  • Another_Jerem...

    Posts: 355

    Jul 14, 2011 12:02 AM GMT
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/tim-pawlenty/tim-pawlenty-says-scientists-are-dispute-over-whet/
  • needleninja

    Posts: 713

    Jul 14, 2011 12:21 AM GMT
    thumbs up*
  • LJay

    Posts: 11612

    Jul 14, 2011 12:34 AM GMT
    Thumbs up where?

    Pawlenty immediately tried to latch on the the gay marriage cliches of his ilk instead of answering the question.

    What is not in dispute is that I have a choice about Tim Pawlenty and I intend to exercise it if given the opportunity.

    True.
  • ryno

    Posts: 105

    Jul 14, 2011 12:41 AM GMT
    Tim "yes man" Pawlenty
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 12:58 AM GMT
    But not "Pants on Fire"? Just "False"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 1:40 AM GMT
    Overall, I think the article makes valid points, especially about separating sexual orientation from sexual attraction.

    What I don't like is this:

    People often talk about "what caused someone to be GAY", when I think the better question is to ask "what causes sexual orientation." This includes heterosexuality. The article got this correct a few times, but there is still a heavy slant in the article implying that heterosexuality is the good and normal and society needs to figure out what caused this crazy thing called gay. "What caused it?"


    On a deeper note, I think it is important as gay men to rise beyond the biology. Heterosexuality is seen as "normal" or "ok", not because it is biologically driven, but because it embodies things that are easily recognized as beautiful, valuable, good. For example, the romance between a man and woman is seen as good and valuable in society. If gay men only hide under the protection of "born this way", we will miss expressing and experiencing our own humanity and relationship with Creator (metaphysically neutral to include any religious, spiritual, or purely scientific way of understanding where we came from) for our own unique beauty, value, and goodness. I believe that it is better to acknowledge that, fundamentally, a gay man must be gay in his core (biologically and/or spiritually, however you wish to understand it), and his own conscious self acknowledged that core, recognized the good, value, beauty, or "ok-ness" in it, and accepted to live his life in a matter that expressed his core. The bases are covered. We have been created, and chosen to exist in a manner that heightens what we consider good, valuable, beautiful, or "ok".

    Please pick this apart, because I'm looking to refine this idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 1:49 AM GMT
    Scientists may not be "in dispute," but that means little, since their conclusions are affected more by political correctness than by science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 2:12 AM GMT
    Rockbiter saidOverall, I think the article makes valid points, especially about separating sexual orientation from sexual attraction.

    What I don't like is this:

    People often talk about "what caused someone to be GAY", when I think the better question is to ask "what causes sexual orientation." This includes heterosexuality. The article got this correct a few times, but there is still a heavy slant in the article implying that heterosexuality is the good and normal and society needs to figure out what caused this crazy thing called gay. "What caused it?"


    On a deeper note, I think it is important as gay men to rise beyond the biology. Heterosexuality is seen as "normal" or "ok", not because it is biologically driven, but because it embodies things that are easily recognized as beautiful, valuable, good. For example, the romance between a man and woman is seen as good and valuable in society. If gay men only hide under the protection of "born this way", we will miss expressing and experiencing our own humanity and relationship with Creator (metaphysically neutral to include any religious, spiritual, or purely scientific way of understanding where we came from) for our own unique beauty, value, and goodness. I believe that it is better to acknowledge that, fundamentally, a gay man must be gay in his core (biologically and/or spiritually, however you wish to understand it), and his own conscious self acknowledged that core, recognized the good, value, beauty, or "ok-ness" in it, and accepted to live his life in a matter that expressed his core. The bases are covered. We have been created, and chosen to exist in a manner that heightens what we consider good, valuable, beautiful, or "ok".

    Please pick this apart, because I'm looking to refine this idea.


    Beautifully put Rockbiter. Couldn't have said it better myself.

    This is why I love this site. I wouldn't say I'm uncomfortable with who I am, but this site has definitely opened up some doors as far as building up my confidence and standing up for my sexuality. It's unfortunate that we have to take the time to stand up and say its "ok" that I'm gay. Hopefully one day that will just go without saying.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 2:20 AM GMT
    Rockbiter saidPlease pick this apart, because I'm looking to refine this idea.


    These became my sentiments even when I was a Bible-thumping evangelical Christian: it wasn't an accident of genes or hormones gone awry, it was by design, that my being gay was part of His Bigger Plan.

    However, as an atheist there's no need for me to see human sexuality as a spectrum of order to chaos; it's all chaos. This is where the chips fell, and the variation within our species is all part of normal. None of these variants prevented me from being viably born, nor do they prevent me from propagating our species. I mean, from a biological standpoint anyway.

    Instead we should turn our ire on those who get boob jobs. Nobody was born THAT way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 3:18 AM GMT
    I think they are arguing that its an important social realization to know that your sexual behavior, including being straight is not an a priori kind of event. It exists because a person comes to identify with it whether through biological impulse (sexual orientation) or social influence.

    If you are a scientifically minded person, then you should be very concerned with the biological basis of homosexuality.

    I think some people are arguing closer to biology than they think. If you want to stress an identity free of societal definition and influence, then you have no better place to look to than biology. Seeking your identity through social means (religion, group spirituality, art etc.,) is always going to be mediated by society. Who you are biologically speaking is a much better definition of your unique status as a human being.