Slashdot Mirror

Actually, the problem is that "being gay" is really a choice, but only a few ultra-honest gays will actually admit that.

From the link:

And, for me, I believe it was a choice. (...) my feelings grew stronger and stronger for her, and it got to a point to where I said, "I can't fight this any more."

Her choice was to accept her feelings, not to have those feelings.

To me (a male homosexual) having those feelings defines me as a homosexual. The choice to accept them and not hide them doesn't change my sexual preference, it only changes how I deal with it. From my perspecive being gay certainly is not a choice.

Actually, the problem is that "being gay" is really a choice

I have no idea why anyone thinks this matters.

Uh, duh, because they're closeted. The subtext here is "look at me! I have managed to repress my urges. So should you. Unless you know a way I can avoid getting caught?"

Actually, the problem is that "being gay" is really a choice

I have no idea why anyone thinks this matters. The reason that gays are A-OK with me is because they're not hurting anyone by their behavior and frankly, in my experience, even seem to be slightly nicer than the rest of us (on average).

something that society wants to promote and give benefits to (e.g. preferential treatment, tax benefits, etc)

Bzzt. Gays do not get preferential treatment or tax benefits for being gay, nor is anyone suggesting this ought to be done.

any more than someone who makes bad lifestyle choices and becomes obese

Now we've completely jumped the rails. Obesity has a significant inherited component. Go trawl NCBI.

there are a large number of parents that don't want their kids recruited to.

Perhaps you're thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses? (Maybe they have a "gay" branch, I dunno.)

not something the majority of society wants to see promoted.

Shouldn't the question here be whether or not a set of behaviors is harmful to society, rather than what "the majority of society wants to see promoted"?

if homosexuality were not a choice, why are the two most common insults directed at anyone who is against public promotion of homosexuality "well you must be in the closet" and "you must be afraid you'll try it and like it"?

Well, (a) one can be gay and in the closet. Doesn't really matter whether or not being gay is genetic. Duh. As for (b), we saw a study just this month that found that homophobic males are most likely to be turned on by gay porn. So, maybe fear of just that really is a significant component here.

Anyway, please take a deep breath. Gay acceptance isn't going to mean the fall of the republic or endanger the safety of your children. For those we have Neocons and motor vehicles, respectively.

P.S. Yeah, I know you're trolling. It was good for me anyway. ;-)

Actually, the problem is that "being gay" is really a choice, but only a few ultra-honest gays will actually admit that.

Whether that choice is something that society wants to promote and give benefits to (e.g. preferential treatment, tax benefits, etc) is a matter of serious debate in the US and in Europe, not so much in other countries around the world (for instance, go to a Muslim country and you're likely to be thrown in jail just for discussing it in public).

Pro-homosexuality advocates want to claim it's not a choice. They want to claim it's "inherent" because if it is, then they can claim to be a "protected class." If it's a choice, then they don't get to be a protected class any more than someone who makes bad lifestyle choices and becomes obese.

Since it is a choice, there are a large number of parents that don't want their kids recruited to. They don't want their kids told at school "this is an acceptable choice" any more than they'd be okay with their kids being told that being a drug user is an acceptable choice, or being a homeless drunk bum is an "acceptable lifestyle choice", or any other of a thousand things that are "lifestyle choices" that are not very good and not something the majority of society wants to see promoted. And these people have as much right as any other Amazon user to complain when they see what they view as inappropriate material being promoted.

Do I think Amazon was responding to genuine complaints about these books coming up in unrelated searches? Definitely. Do I then think that the usual pro-homosexuality groups pitched a fit and tried to raise a stink? Absolutely. Do I think Amazon was caught in the middle of a crappy culture-war style situation? That's an easy bet to take.

Ask yourself a simple question: if homosexuality were not a choice, why are the two most common insults directed at anyone who is against public promotion of homosexuality "well you must be in the closet" and "you must be afraid you'll try it and like it"? The mask slips just a tad too often, showing that the "it's not a choice" propaganda is pure lies.

Why don't we ever discuss things that matter to us?

http://www.gay.com/

humbug. You make a lot of insinuations clearly derived from an after-school-special mindset.

...and now I don't play any video games at all, because the guitar is actually productive

So who says being productive is better than not being productive? Seems to me a lot of peoples' idea of the good life is fishing or playing golf most of the day, why not video games? And how is making music productive?

Music will even help you unwind, and will stimulate new areas of your brain.

Video games do both of those.

I realized that it's really kind of anti-social, sitting in your house on the computer, so I figured I'd better start playing music again.

Oh My God! Somebody wants to be alone! They must be anti-social, weird, a slug, a unibomber or mal-adjusted. It's nice that your hobby solved a problem for you; lonliness. But not everyone has that problem. Some gamers are happy just hanging out with their one or two or three friends on rare occasions when they need some sunlight. This is one of those opinions that stems from the idea that social activities are somehow intrinsicly superior to solitary activities. I'm sure 10 out of 10 extroverts agree but for some people solitude is a fulfilling aspect of life, not something to be avoided at all costs.

What would you rather do - sit at home playing video games and being a slug, or out with your friends making music

9 times out of 10? Rather be at home playing video games, sometimes with a friend, sometimes not, though I run a few miles several times a week so I don't quite think I'm a slug. Out with friends making music usually also entails things like noisy, dirty environments, fragile egos, equipment freaks with more gadgets than talent, drug use (legal or otherwise) and staying up so late I regret it the next day.

it's a great way to meet...the opposite sex

Yick, you can keep 'em.

Anyway, I'm glad music helped you make some friends you evidently desired more than solitude, but not everyone is like that. Just because no one can contact me for four days when a new RTS game comes out doesn't mean I'm a miserable addict shaking myself to sleep wishing I had more friends. Sure I'm not immune to the need for socialization, but a few hours with a friend and some time in the same room as another beating heart and I'm good to go for another 2-4 days by myself, completely satisfied.

When the power's out or I'm just burned out on games I study philosophy mostly and read a lot. I imagine the after-school-special mentality of reading=good would say that those activities are more "productive" than video gaming. But all they really do is make me a more interesting cocktail party guest. Other than that they serve the same exact purpose as all my leisure activities: To make me happy. Therefore the only way to decide which activity is superior to another is to decide which makes me happiest. Now, by default, whichever activity I choose is the one that's going to make me happiest, otherwise I wouldn't have chosen it. Ergo: Video games make me just as happy as drinking beer with friends, playing guitar or reading Aristotle. They all have their time and place. What makes one more important than another is dependent upon the individual.

So, I'm glad you found a life that makes you happy. But that doesn't mean lots of people wouldn't have been perfectly happy with the one you were trying to escape.

It's called democracy. Change the hearts and minds of the masses and then you can have your way. Don't like that? I know of no other option than to suggest revolution or move to another place. Here's the challenge: What do you do when your value system and mine directly conflict? What if your value system called for you to consume large quantities of alcohol then barf on my lawn. What about what I want?

It's called representative democracy - a completely different idea to democracy. Democracy is a forum where the most popular ideas are approved or denied on a case by case basis by the population who are affected by these decisions. Representative democracy is, effectively, a diluted electoral system which accentuates the political impotence of the masses in the face of big business lobbyists. To take an idea from an earlier post of yours, show me a healthy, happy western democracy. You know, no epidemic of crime, murder and dissent sort of idea...

What's to say the lack of law would result in a vomit covered lawn? I'm just trying (repeatedly) to make the point that if courtesy and respect were as important in the education system as attaining personal wealth then I doubt that a vomitous lawn would be a concern and the law's heavy hand might not be necessary.

So, you suggest that the law is unfair or unjustly limiting your personal freedoms, and that you want to be freed to live out the values that you choose because you are a responsible person. Can you see that the culture around you has laws to restrain behavior, and even with that help, people seem largely unable or unwilling to take that responsibility? It seems to me that removal of law would worsen not help that problem.

I already made this point a few times. What I asked for is an explanation for the lack of personal responsibility in most of the population. Have you got an explanation outside the greed encouraged by advertising and the education system?

Anecdotes do not a good study make. As I read on this issue (and I do read lay literature with some regularity - not the journals themselves) it seems to me that the studies indicate that the relative mental health you assess in your friends is not consistent with the homosexual population at large. The science appears pretty clear here. Can you point to scientific analysis on this issue that supports your experience?

Actually, my source is the very GLMA study you "cited" (no link) in an earlier post. Note how high this anxiety and depression appears on the list - the number three risk - way before anything even mentioning the anus. Higher up even than hepatitis - serious shit.

Will you please define homophobia? The reason I ask is that I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. If tolerance is a part of your response, would you kindly define that term for me? My belief is that the colloquial use of that word differs significantly from the denotative meaning, and I want to make sure that we mean the same thing when we use emotionally charged words.

I'd like to start by pointing out a fundamental fact that seems to be missing from your logic... Homosexuality is not a choice. For such a worldly traveller and intense thinker I'd have thought such a thing would be immediately obvious, but it seems the doctrine behind your faith has clouded your judgment. It's not a "lifestyle" or a "perversion", it's your sexuality. You're born with it. If this wasn't the case then why would you choose it? It merely invites trouble from those with a zeal for faith. It being a choice makes no sense - its like choosing the path of most resistance for the reward of eternal damnation. The idea of homosexuality being unnatural is just a symptom of the puritan hangover that afflicts our society... The virtue of overcompensation, an obsession with a dignity of our

Funny you should mention this. Did you see the ad on the SFGate site? Sexy!!!

Freedom of Speech, by definition, allows people to speak their minds, no matter what they believe.
I recall the case of an Aspergic Priest in the UK, who erected a sign outside his church that read, "Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism." (Link here)
Now, while the placard was destroyed in this case, it's very much the same principle of "Where do you draw the line?". If you lock someone up, or fine them for speaking their mind, whose views do you choose to take action agaonst?

Libraries in the US are getting closer to censorship than ever. Take for example this new Alabama Bill targeting Gay Authors http://gay.com/gay http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/eveningn ews/main691106.shtml from an elected Republican representative in the state legislature, Gerald "book-burying " Allen http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11 710,1369643,00.html Consider some 'minor incidents' like New Mexico Book burning party http://books.guardian.co.uk/harrypotter/story/0,10 761,626418,00.html Google is a US company, who already succumbed to China censorship pressures http://www.rfa.org/english/news/technology/2004/08 /01/142626/. Would they resist censorship pressures from the Christian right? Yea, right, just like Microsoft did http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/ 21/162247. Don't fool yourself, folks. US companies are no longer a reliable for such a task. If Google is allow t create another de facto monopoly in Library Search, we risk gay books, Evolution volumes or the freaking Harry Potter adventures disappearing anytime now. Let me ask you, who's going to preserve Western Culture heritage if the US completes it's path towards fascism bushflash.com/14.html? India!? The Chinese!!? Well, apparently it's going to be the French. Good for them.

See 'Gay Daleks': mini screenshot, article.

> > Its trademark 'sink plunger' attachment also reveals a
> > terrifying new function.

> Is it just me or does that sound terrifyingly sexual?

"White wee-wee!"

"Exsperminate!"

Bring back the Gay Daleks!. Hmm...

A: What is the captial of Georgia?

Thats correct, however we would also have accepted

A: What is a hot spot for lesbians?

I suspect you work for Apple Computer and you're one of their paid astroturfers who go to slashdot and post misinformation.

You'll just have to do a little better than this to get anyone to believe you!

...of my technical advisor's litterbox, that life could consist or stealthy, rust-colorerd felines.

--QTone, not French

I love it when they go prancing around saying Megahurth Myth! That really gives me a boner!

Mr Hancock accused the BBC of lying about the reasons a deal had not been made.

He said the BBC had tried to commission a cartoon series about gay Daleks for BBC Three.

WTF?!?

What's worse: it's apparently true. Crazy fucking Brits.

That can be found here.

Read this first. Then read this and this. Now do you understand?

haha preach on no penis man!! keep making with teh gay!

click hear SHITTY MAN

A "Googling" of "Edmund White Evanston" yields mixed results.

Edmund White, not to be confused with me; Edmund William White, is originally from Evanston, Illinois.

He's an older white man. I'm the opposite.

He's known for works like, Once a Sodomite, Twice a Philosopher and other queer-studies materials. I'm a house DJ.

These are fairly strong differences, but I've had more than a few employers confuse me with him. In one case, I walked into an empty interview room to find this on the interviewer's monitor. He was quite shocked to see that I wasn't what/who he was expecting. I've had other potential employers respond with, "You're too old" or "How's your writing career," etc. It's a good ice-breaker, though.

Hi. I'm an early 20-something gay geek looking to have a good time with some other gay geeks. I've already tried gay.com and planetout.com personal ads without much success. Sure, there's a lot of gays on those services, but if I mention Linux to them they think it is some kind of new lubricant. I want a geek who knows what I'm talking about when I start mounting my removable media.

If you're near my age and interested, please e-mail me at gaygeekboi@gay.com. Thanks!

Hi. I'm an early 20-something gay geek looking to have a good time with some other gay geeks. I've already tried gay.com and planetout.com personal ads without much success. Sure, there's a lot of gays on those services, but if I mention Linux to them they think it is some kind of new lubricant. I want a geek who knows what I'm talking about when I start mounting my removable media.

If you're near my age and interested, please e-mail me at gaygeekboi@gay.com. Thanks!

...looks like something you'd expect on a Gay site? Umm, not that I'd know what things look like on gay sites. And, uhh, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Ah, the embarrassment argument. It hinges on the premise that kids wouldn't be embarrassed to ask some random authority-figure adult for permission to legitimate topics. However legitimate topic include information about birth control, abortion, or sexually transmitted disease.

A friend of mine who works for a certain company that produces a firewall-style filter product (We'll call them "Oak In" - thank you internet anagram server) said he got a call from a polite gentleman in Texas who said that the product wasn't working.

So my buddy asks him why he thinks that, and the guy says, "I looked at my logs and I saw that they were going to gay.com." So he looks up the site, which turns out to be a community site - Not pornography-related at all. The individual was quite taken aback. I guess he has such a strong aversion to gay porn that the thought that he might end up looking at a frontpage for a site full of it would scorch the eyes right out of his head, or similar.

Given that we know these attitudes exist in people, I think it's highly likely that people will fail to get information they need because it is inappropriately blocked, because they'll be too shy to ask.

On the other hand, it's nice to know that this major company was good enough to not block that site.

How would you like it if I did that every single time you posted something? Just quoted it with crazy links inserted that looked like you put them in? What about this?

"Use it or don't, but don't complain and whine about how this is violating your basic natural rights or how it's a sign of creeping corporatism that's going to take over your brain and steal your children. Also, I love gay sex. Lots and lots of gay sex."

There, I just added a little something to your original message, and I even put it in bold to make sure it was clear you hadn't said it, just like Deja does with those orange "LOOK AT THIS!" arrows.

Now tell me, what's the difference between what I just did and what Deja did, and do you enjoy it? If you really doni't care then you're a totally mindless shill.