You either believe being glbt is a choice or you don't

[The Straight Story]

If you think it isn't a choice then there is no reason a person should be against glbt folks having the same rights (marriage, etc) that everyone has (or should have).

I just don't know how much more it can be said.

Let people freaking live their lives and stay out of their business, and support those who fight for equal rights and against discrimination.

African-Americans, Whites, Indians, Asians, Straight, Gay, and so on have all fought and died to keep this a country where a person can be free to be themselves.

We should honor that by fighting here on our own soil to keep progress alive and the rights of all intact. We have a good start with the last election, but we also saw how many people are scared of someone else having the same rights they enjoy.

Why is it so hard to love and accept others?

[SeattleGirl]

1. It's beyond me how anyone could think being GLBT is a choice,

if for no other reason than it's crazy to think that a person would deliberately CHOOSE to live a life that subjected them to prejudice, bigotry, hatred, derision, and sometimes, physical danger.

A person who is GLBT can no more "help it" than I can help being born straight.

It just boggles the mind.

[BR_Parkway]

2. That's why I added the new signature line - too many still don't get it

[MineralMan]

3. Frankly, it shouldn't matter either way, as far as I'm concerned.

People should be able to choose a partner in marriage without questions being asked about it at all. As long as both are of age, it ain't nobody else's business.

That said, being gay or lesbian is not a choice, as far as I know. I didn't choose to be heterosexual, so why would I think anyone else had a choice in this.

[hamsterjill]

12. Good explanation

To me, a heterosexual, whether it's a choice or not, it poses no harm to me - so why should I object to consenting adults living their lives as they wish so long as it does not harm me in any way?

[Believing Is Art]

4. The people who accept it is not a choice and are still against gay rights amaze me

"No, they didn't choose to be homosexual, but it is still a sin" . . . So, God loves us all the same but he predisposed some people to never enjoy a physical relationship without fear of eternal damnation? Huh?

[unpossibles]

5. I agree, although I also agree equal rights should be allowed regardless

If it is a choice, it should still be protected.

Religion is a choice (although most tend to conveniently be born into the "One True Religion™®" without the need to make said choice, and it's protected.

[MnFats]

6. what ordinary straight person is going to wake up one morning and say....

"OK, I guess I'll be gay from now on. I can put up with being beat up (or worse), fired from my job, disowned by my family, prohibited
from seeing my partner or my (or our) kids, trashed constantly on radio and TV and made a scapegoat of all the nation's problems."
"Yep, those gays have it pretty good, all right. I'm joining up. Maybe I can get with that Gay Mafia and make a lot of money. It's 'so long, straight life' for me!

[peacebird]

9. Exactly!

[TahitiNut]

7. For those who think so, I ask "Was it a difficult choice for you?"

I've never gotten an honest answer to that. :shrug: Strange.

[peacebird]

8. I know I was born wired to love men, not women. I assume other folks are wired at birth also.

Some people are wired to love the opposite sex, some are wired to love the same sex, and some are wired to love either/or both.
Some people are born in a body that is opposite their internal wiring.

Frankly my dears, I don't give a damn which way a person is wired - as long as adults only play with other adults, and they treat their partner lovingly then all is fine.

Equal rights for everyone regardless. No one else's marriage has any impact on mine. My marriage is protected by my hubby and I.

[Gwendolyn]

10. In peoples' minds there are perfectly good reasons for their bigoted views.

This whole "lifestyle" business is just a way for fundies of all religions to assuage their consciences, and avoid acknowledging their own bigotry. By claiming it's a choice they can discriminate and harass to their hearts' content, while 'loving the sinner, but not the sin." Most people understand it's not a choice, but wouldn't affect their views anyway. The elderly are stuck in their times and don't like change. People who are in their mid-thirties to forties and have kids. hear horror stories of 5-year-olds suddenly being exposed to sex education in pre-school. Some minorities come from repressive cultural societies where homosexuality just isn't accepted. Some are the kind of people who hate everyone unlike them, whether they're handicapped, a different race or gay, it's equal opportunity bigotry. Others fear their own bisexual urgings. All kinds of reasons to keep gay people from marrying in society.

[mkultra]

11. sorry but this isnt true

Some people feel that being gay is not choice but that marriage has other purposes such as building a structure for procreation. This view is not necessarily rooted in religion.

[matcom]

14. those people would be wrong

are you about to deny my marriage because my wife had cancer and cannot have children? would you deny it knowing that I never WANTED children?

[mkultra]

15. i have no interest in defending this point of view.

i was pointing out that your op is incorrect. Im sure your having trouble seeing that through your anger.

[matcom]

16. not my OP but thanks for playing

[mkultra]

19. great, so but out then.

[Toasterlad]

48. Pardon My Butting In

I can fix the OP for you. Just insert "good" between "no" and "reason" in the first sentence. For example, your ludicrous "marriage is only for procreation" theory would NOT be a "good" reason. See how it works?

[mkultra]

53. ahh, thank you.

to that i would say also, that in my opinion, and probably in most here, there is no good reason. This of course makes pointing this out in an op redundant to conversation but perhaps the author is speaking rhetorically to the invisible fundies much like people talk to characters in horror films. You know, "DONT OPEN THAT DOOR!"

[Toasterlad]

55. Sadly, There Are MANY - Here on DU and Elsewhere - Who DO Think There Are Good Reasons

Many don't believe that same-sex people should have any legal standing whatsoever. More believe that seperate-but-equal civil unions are okay, but marriage is not.

The OP's point is both true and necessary.

[mkultra]

57. if we can convince those close to us through talk instead of threats and anger

then they will convince those close to them. This is how change happens. This is how MLK did it.

[Terran]

61. It's "butt", not "but"

you "fucking slackjawed retard".

[mkultra]

68. thanks. Butt out!

[htuttle]

17. That's nutz, and has nothing to do with a marriage contract

A secular marriage license is a civil contract to share property and legal responsibility between two parties. The ONLY arguments I have ever heard against allowing those two parties to be the same gender are religious in nature.

I would suggest, therefore, that we finally split marriage off from it's religious elements once and for all. If a church wants to have it's own sanctification ceremonies, that is its own business and they can set the rules for them, but they should not have any more legal weight than a bar mitzvah or a baptism.

Civil marriage should be allowed to any two parties that consent to it, and there is no argument that I have ever heard against that other a religious one (which should have nothing to do with contracts and laws in a secular society).

[annabanana]

18. The religious ceremonies already DON'T HAVE any

legal weight. None. Nada. Zip.

The only legal piece of paper is the one that you get at City Hall, regardless of whatever the hell is printed at the top.

[htuttle]

26. Exactly

So why are ANY religious arguments about marriage contracts even entertained in the public sphere in this country?

If I am allowed to incorporate a business partnership with a particular person, why should I be prohibited from entering into a marriage contract with them?

(I think we agree on this, btw)

[mkultra]

20. yeah, i think marriage was codified into law to promote

the well being of the community by insuring that child bearing couples where tied together.

While I'm sure there have been various reasons through time for the codification of marriage the the primary cause has always been about community growth while using religion to sort of lend credibility to the "sanctity" of the bond.

Marriage as an institution for this purpose is slowly becoming obsolete though.

[htuttle]

25. You might think that, but you'd be wrong

Marital law, separate from the church, has always been about transmission of property (and protection of bloodlines, which is also basically about property).

Marriage wasn't really even codified into civil law in Britain until the 1700's. Before then, nobody but the nobility really owned very much, so it wasn't needed. In fact, I'd say that the legislation of marriage by governmental has probably traced the same timeline as the rise of the merchant class and increasing wealth of the peasantry.

Read some history instead of just 'thinking' about why things are as they are.

[mkultra]

29. im afraid your leaving out perpetuation as a historical foundation

while transfer of property and bloodline where a part of marriage, especially in the middle ages, the ancient historical purpose of marriage is primarily perpetuation of the species.


prior to 1700 in Europe, weddings where a private matter while the church was charged with recording the marriage.

[annabanana]

31. link?. . . . . n/t

[mkultra]

32. well , ill have to dig something up.

[mkultra]

36. heres a start

i had to dig up a digital scan of this book as its not an internet reference.


The concept is essentially this: Marriage is a relic of human antiquity that reflects a necessity of some sort. in pre-civilization/tribal times, these rules where used to support the growth of offspring in the community structure.

It wasn't until later that these laws started being included into written laws. Before that, they where either cultural or religious.

Frankly, this line of discussion doesn't really address the issue of gay marriage without also including a discussion of gay couples raising children. I personally think that gay couple should not only be allowed to adopt but also should be encouraged. This of course would require a marriage structure.

I do have trouble feeling good about letting groups of people marry , but for completely different reasons.

http://books.google.com/books?id=g9MhAAAAMAAJ&dq=origins+of+marriage&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=11&ct=result#PPR4,M1

[htuttle]

33. And before 1700 in Europe, marriage had absolutely nothing to do with property

There was no 'child support' or 'alimony', even in those countries that allowed divorce through the church. Widows could easily lose their property rights after their husband died. In fact, the ONLY religious marriages that I can think of that even mention property are those conducted under Islamic Law (where the wife does, in fact, have property rights).

I'm saying that marriage by a church, and marriage by the state are entirely different concepts that merely share the same name.

[mondo joe]

46. That's stupid. People *married* before it was codified into law. NT

[POAS]

65. Couldn't agree more...and I would add

(even though I have been called stupid for saying this) that by putting restrictions on a civil contract based on a particular religious opinion gives defacto endorsement to that religion and its views. This is a clear violation of separation.

[Terran]

22. The procreation argument holds zero weight

because not all straight married people procreate, and marriage is still legal for them. They can claim that as an argument, but it makes them looks stupid outright, when at least the "lifestyle" angle is difficult to prove (as far as I know there is no hard medical proof).

[mkultra]

41. answered here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4683837&mesg_id=4686598

[Terran]

50. Fails

The point is, the fundies aren't using books to make the argument. They say that we should be denied marriage because we can't procreate--period. If you're trying to say that argument holds water, you're just wrong.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Qibing Zero]

24. ..and CLEARLY procreation is helping our species currently. NT

[Creideiki]

28. And how about the children in families headed up by same-sex couples?

They should get punished because their two moms or two dads don't fit someone else's narrow worldview, I suppose.

[mkultra]

42. answered here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4683837&mesg_id=4686598

[Creideiki]

45. And how about my straight married friends that have decided never to have kids?

Should their marriage be annulled because they're choosing to be childless? How about other friends that have tried to have kids, but can't?

If the sole purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for child-rearing, why don't we require child-rearing to take place?

[mkultra]

51. that would be an overreaching move by the government

this is that part of the conversation where you prove that your not actually reading by attacking me for a point of view you think i hold but for which ive already said i don't hold.

[Creideiki]

62. The point is

procreation is an ancillary part of marriage. Sometimes it takes place, sometimes it doesn't. And there are a lot of childrearing same-sex couples that are not allowed basic necessities like two-parent adoption. All because the thought of gay people having access to an existing legal structure skeeves out some people. A parallel legal structure will require constant attention to make sure that nasty people don't come along and start creating extra bonuses for the "real" marriages. Separating the civil marriage from the religious marriage takes care of that, without having to do a global search and replace on all of our civil, tax, immigration and family law. Why not just allow gay people to get married then?

That's the one thing you haven't addressed. I'm guessing it's because there is no non-discriminatory way to address that.

[mkultra]

66. actually, i have addressed it

The scope of my comment was in regard to the OPs attempt to define the types of opposition used by those who oppose gay marriage. I was simply pointing out that there are other reasons as well. As i said just before your last comment, i did not include any defense or discussion of the validity of this position but rather merely stated its existence. It is a debate position.

In the mentioned system, marriage is the foundation for raising children which may or may not be successful(i.e. lead to children or their successful upbringing). Whether all marriages successfully bear creative fruit does not degrade this originating purpose.

Since you have attempted to assign the position to me and question my opinion, as predicted, let me say the following.

I do agree that the purpose both historically and possibly modernly is to create a structure for children to thrive in. I do not believe that government should ever penalize people for not raising children while being married and i agree with tax benefits to help families raising children.

For those that agree with me, their opinion of gay marriage then hinges upon resolving the argument in regard to gay couples raising children. I personally feel that gay couples are just as able to raise children as any straight couple, thus my stand on gay marriage is in support. You can see where the other argument goes.

Additionally, let me say that inviting gay couples into the marriage scope would certainly be a great benefit for society at large as it would take a giant chunk out of the swath of children awaiting good homes. Also, you made an excellent point which i had yet to consider regarding civil unions. I had been dubious on this topic, but your logic is inescapable. If someone has reached the conclusions that I have regarding gay couples and children, then a completely equal structure is the only sufficient way to handle the processes.

Thanks.

[JackRiddler]

13. Um, even if it is a choice (which it isn't)...

It would be the choice of consenting adults not harming anyone else, so it's a) none of anyone else's business and b) an expression of love, which is always good and beautiful.

Everything in the science and in our own animal experience says the object of sexual attraction is not a choice -- it's hardwired and impossible to change.

Nevertheless, this shouldn't be the defense!

Take your cue from the political philosophy proclaimed by this republic: This is about freedom.

Freedom is also not a choice - it's an inherent property, a right bestowed by birth.

Freedom doesn't need to be justified by a genetic propensity.

Let all the people be free.

[Terran]

21. "The Gay Lifestyle"...

i.e., "it's a choice", is central to every brick in the fundie foundation opposing our civil rights. Without that, all they have is their hatred. They will never stop insisting that it's a choice.

Ironic, considering religion is a choice, and look how protected it is.

[Mike 03]

23. A choice? I don't think anybody who is well educated still believes it is a choice.

Maybe some people pretend they think it is a choice so they can make the lives of everyone who has a different sexual orientation from them into a living hell.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Actually, I don't care. It's their right to live as they wish.

If it's genetic, fine. If it's free choice, fine.

My 76 year old sister-in-law is a lesbian in relationship that has lasted over 40 years.

Was she born a Lesbian? Did she choose to be a Lesbian?

Why should she, or anyone else, be required to explain their sexuality?

Hopefully, the day will come when people's sexuality is a matter of indifference to everyone except those concerned.

[mykpart]

30. How about this?

People who are left-handed should not be allowed to eat in public, and should never be allowed to study art. Makes as much sense.

[htuttle]

34. That was sort of true not that long ago

When I was in elementary school (in a backwater town in the late 60's), people who were left-handed were often 'trained' to become right-handed. They made me sit on my left hand while I learned to write with my right. I still blame my bad penmanship on it...

[dysfunctional press]

35. some of the nuttier jobs think that their god says that it's an abomination...

and that he apparently wants his faithful subjects to erase his "mistakes"...otherwise people could claim that he isn't infallible- when everyone knows that he is. once all the queers is gone.

[Bucky]

37. If sexual orientation were a choice....

it still wouldn't be a reasonable basis for legal discrimination.

[Iggo]

38. No choice...well, not about that anyway.

I'm straight, and I'm no expert, other than being an expert at being told that since I'm straight I have no idea what I'm talking about. Whatever. Here's a fact: I've known lots and lots of gay people over the course of my lifetime (47 yrs), many of them friends, most of them just people I knew. The only choice they had was whether to come out or not.

[Withywindle]

39. It's not a choice but even if it were what frakkin' difference would it make?

Religion is DEFINITELY a choice, but I don't support the idea of discriminating against religions or religious people (of ANY religion). Funny, though, the kind of hateful wingnuts who use religion to shit on GLBT people - just as religion has been used to justify slavery and oppression of women and killing of people who believe differently for thousands of years, great track record there--are the most likely to whine that they're somehow being discriminated against if their every degrading superstition isn't encoded in law and treated like it should be magically free from criticism.

Religion is still a class we respect in discrimination issues nonetheless. Unlike being GLBT, you can choose to be religious, or not to be. You can choose your religion. Even within the context of the religion you were raised in, you can choose not to be a bigot - people do it all the time. Yet still, no one's calling for denial of basic civil rights of people of faith. No one's saying that people who, say, convert to Catholicism late in life or realize that they're atheists after being raised Muslim, or adopt Buddhist practice in addition to being culturally Jewish, or what have you, should not be able to MARRY THE PERSON THEY LOVE.

[MazeRat7]

40. Interesting how all, thus far, have zeroed in on your first sentence....

Personally I think your last sentence has the most "iron". At least to me.

Peace,
MZr7

[Gwendolyn]

43. Replying to the first, answers the last.

[otherlander]

44. I know it's not a choice.

But if it was, I don't think I'd choose to be straight. I think I'd choose to be bi. It's worked out pretty well for me so far, so why not? And you know what? I think that even if I did choose to be bi, there would still be no good reason for anyone to be against my having equal rights. I respect what you're saying but I don't think that it should hinge on "we can't help it!", which sounds more like an excuse for a fault than a statement of pride.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

47. What if it were a choice?

How does that make it any different? As if that's some sort of pathetic rationalization for bigotry.

[bluedawg12]

49. If it were a choice would change the legal definition of a minority

Gay rights is not about convincing others to vote for our position as civil rights should not be put up to popular vote, it is not about religious debate it is a struggle in the Courts to fight for civil rights and equality. Allies are welcome along the way. :)

[The Straight Story]

56. Well said

Thank you.

[meow2u3]

54. LGBT tendencies are inborn

Whether or not one acts on such tendencies is a choice, just as straight sexual behavior is a choice. It's the behavior that's a choice, not the tendency toward such behavior. Take it from a celibate straight woman.

[Rockholm]

58. I believe being straight is a choice.

:sarcasm:

[Deja Q]

59. Because it's easier to hate

And that has far more to do than if a person chooses to act on their emotions or not, in whatever context.

[Lil Missy]

60. My only "choice" was several miserable years in denial to avoid being ostracized by society.

To those who argue that "choice" nonsense, I want to know when you "chose" to be straight? The usual response is something like, "well I always have been", or "I was born that way." My point exactly.

:rant:

PS - this is not directed at the OP. :hi:

[Norrin Radd]

63. The bigots are clinging to this with a vice grip, because hatred of glbt persons

is one their last socially acceptable forms of bigotry.

[Orsino]

64. Even if it were a choice, that would be no reason to discriminate.

To wed is a choice, but we seem eager enough to bestow rights on Ward and June.

[Cassius23]

67. Actually it isn't quite so simple.

From what I can surmise it is both a choice and not at the same time.

People have a genetic predisposition which, with certain stimuli, will exert strong pressure towards the individual to express that predisposition.

However, if the stimuli never occurs or the individual has a VERY strong bias against this predisposition(for example, if someone is visciously beaten whenever they drink something with alcohol in it), then that predisposition won't be expressed.

So, is it a choice? Well, kinda but not really. If an individual goes against this genetic predisposition then they are pretty much assured a feeling of vast dissatisfaction and sadness until they do.

In some cases this is necessary for the good of society(for example, if the predisposition is towards extreme violence), but in the case of a predisposition for homosexuality between individuals above the age of consent with no factors mitigating their ability to consent, that clearly does not pose a danger.