Sexual Predestination
But there is a problem. Nobody is born anything, as far as we can tell. It can’t be proven people are born straight, gay, or anything else.
The great irony is that in pushing this “Born Gay Manifesto”, many have left the field of Science for much more palatable and imaginary Sexual Predestination.
See, these folks are arguing that sexuality is decided at the fetal stages or sometime earlier. They eschew the views of their contemporaries that sexuality is a complex combination of environment, stimulus and other factors, because it doesn’t fit into their desirable worldview.
When one of these Sexual Predestination acolytes asks the typical stupid question: “Why would someone choose to be gay?” Say, “I don’t know. Are you saying choosing gayness is bad or wrong? Are you saying it is an undesirable affliction?” You will be surprised at the number of “open-minded” people who think being gay is an affliction or akin to a disease when they are pressed. It is amazing where people leap to when they have no core and you pull the rug out from under their feet.
The fact is that the Sexual Predestination crowd has abandoned medical science for political beliefs. In their world, you are born straight & gay, maybe bi-sexual, but all of the other uncomfortable stuff like Muslims with eleven year old brides, Nam-blights and sparky humpers, are considered a paraphilia, a word which has also changed for political comfort and convenience.
The time has come to reclaim science as a tool for learning, exploration and debate, not a place for pushing the tin cup toward taxpayers to fund what leftists think is in fashion.
November 26th, 2008 - 4:04 pm
Why do I even bother with you. You should leave the science to the scientists if you are going to be this ignorant about the subject.
November 26th, 2008 - 5:39 pm
Why do we bother posting your drivel?
You haven’t brought squat to the table in three months.
November 27th, 2008 - 12:11 pm
Okay, I’ll bite. For what reason I do not know.
What, Rude Dog, is your view on the matter? Because I have read here several times that you do not believe in people being “born gay”. I am not going to put words in your mouth and assume you believe the accepted opposite of that (which would be it is acquired later in life).
Bear in mind that there are some pretty strong lines of research that have shown sexuality is probably not a consciously acquired characteristic. The anecdotal evidence from gay people also argues in favor of “born that way”. If you don’t believe that…why? You never address that in these posts, you just beat the drum that whatever the liberals think must be wrong. But what is the correct answer?
November 27th, 2008 - 1:55 pm
In this instance, it is the people who believe in sexual predestination who have made things up for a political purpose.
They try to focus just on straight and gay, ignoring the spectrum that is human sexuality.
It is sexual predestination for what they are comfortable with.
The fact that there is no proof of this, or that they focus only on very specific forms of sexuality, is conveniently ignored.
They have simply exchanged belief for scientific rigor.
November 28th, 2008 - 10:43 am
You have just told me what “the people who believe in sexual predestination” believe without telling me a thing about what you believe. I already know what you think the other side believes. STop mincing words and come out with it: what is your belief on this topic? Or are you going to hide behind this “let the science decide” smokescreen and evade again?
For what it is worth your observation about a spectrum of human sexuality is spot on. But answering the question would have been nice too.
November 28th, 2008 - 10:51 am
There is no idea that I am hiding behind at all.
I have no idea how humans come to their sexual preferences.
We don’t know, and that’s the point.
When it becomes uncomfortable for the left, they simply declare in the name of science what they want it to be.
November 28th, 2008 - 11:43 am
So on this topic, of every topic on which you have claimed so much certitude, you throw up your hands and demand more research? You suddenly develop agnosticism on something when your world is so black-and-white? If I didn’t know better I would say you are desperately dancing on the head of a pin to avoid saying something you really believe but is perhaps too rude for even the Rude Dog. Maybe if I double-dog dare you?
November 28th, 2008 - 12:32 pm
I would like to see the “certitude” examples. We can take them one at a time.
The black and white part is “these liberals are making it up”
As far as demanding research, I don’t see where that request was made.
I simply point out that these “born that way” fantasies are just that.
The world is black and white. That doesn’t mean we will always have the correct answer at the right time.
Simple does not mean easy.
December 1st, 2008 - 10:55 am
I don’t provide examples here anymore. It’s pointless. You always do this thing where you act like you’d love to see the evidence of our claims, then just delete the posting if you think it is too long. And of course any post that references your nazi-boot post deletion gets deleted too. Like this one…to the dustbin.
December 1st, 2008 - 6:15 pm
Why do you have to ramble on so long?
Just link my old post where this “certitude” took place.
It’s pretty easy. It should take you about 3 sentences and a link.
Even you can do it.
Anything else from you other than these “examples” , is going into the dustbin.
December 2nd, 2008 - 11:43 am
This entire blog is a temple to how right you think you are about everything. So I only need one link: http://www.therudenews.com.
Specific posts? All of them, except for this series where you play the agnostic because you are for some unfathomable reason incapable of just coming out with what you really believe.
December 2nd, 2008 - 12:08 pm
And so we have it folks, the liberal dodge.
“So I only need one link…”
…because I can’t find a specific example in a place that is supposed to be full of them.
The above example is typical of liberals when they have to make decisions; they don’t.
December 2nd, 2008 - 12:36 pm
You really are pathetic. You only have 2 moves, you know:
- Ask for the evidence and ignore it if presented.
- Toss out “typical liberal” groupspeak if you are told where to stick it.
But here you so, start your bobbing and weaving:
Certitude about liberals and minorities: http://www.therudenews.com/archives/1953
Certitude about democratic economic intentions: http://www.therudenews.com/archives/1200
Just to throw out a couple. So go ahead and dance…or admit that you’re too afraid to just come out and sound as anti-gay as you actually are. Hiding behind “lack of research” the same way you do on global warming almost flies here because the topic is so new, but it is unbefitting someone who seems to be so certain that everything has an easy answer (vote Republican, usually).
December 2nd, 2008 - 7:29 pm
How isn’t it certain that the left was upset with it’s exploited minority voters?
http://www.therudenews.com/archives/1953
“They showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white christian right wing counterpartners who voted for mccain-palin and bush-cheney.” – Typical liberal crazy ass who catscratch can never seem to find on the Internet. Too busy Trolling TRN.
Stop Raping My Elephant was about the right losing its way, what is this about democratic certitude? Where is that post out of line? You just say “ooh you are so certain” Why shouldn’t those posts have been certain?
http://www.therudenews.com/archives/1200
The final part of your comment, this lamenting that liberals can’t prove their earth raping or born gay manifestos, this isn’t my problem.
It’s yours.
It also doesn’t make anyone anti-gay because they don’t vote for your political heroes or their stupid propositions.
The phrase “Hiding behind “lack of research”’ is very revealing, as you admit both that there isn’t anything other than a political consensus and that you want your way regardless of the truth. It took you awhile, but your accusatory projecting onto TRN was fun to watch.
December 4th, 2008 - 12:05 pm
Okay, two things. Forst, you still haven’t answered my question. Acuse me of dodging all you want but I wasn’t the one asked a direct question and proving the inability to answer it. I am not going to make any assumtions about what your agnosticism on this issue means, Maybe you have deep-seated homosexual urges of your own and on this topic you are holding out for the science to alleviate your guilt on the matter. I am only mostly kidding.
Second, here is a relatively scientific article, but not from a journal, talking about the research. It is a link, so before you dustbin the post for insulting you or whatever, read this:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay/article_view?b_start:int=3&-C=
Good luck.
December 4th, 2008 - 12:26 pm
And I specifically chose that article to demonstrate the fact that science is being very even-handed on this topic. Of the many possible avenues of causation, however, one is becoming very clearly NOT one of them: people do not seem to “choose” to be gay. That line of argument is all but dead.
December 4th, 2008 - 1:54 pm
It is not dead simply because you or some latte sipper declares it.
You are the typical liberal in that you accuse me of being gay and then say you are being humorous, ala Bill Maher and all those other losers who inform your crowd.
The article is very nice, doesn’t prove squat, and doesn’t declare any avenue is dead. You should read it sometime.
The obliviousness of people like you ignoring prison sex, fetishism, the ancient world, Mullahs and their little boys, and many other instances where people choose to engage in sexual acts, is the greatest amusement of all. All history and circumstance must be ignored and brushed aside so some political activists can get their way.
Also, my ambivalence troubles you because you need for me to be some kind of homo-hater.
Well, just like your born gay fantasy, there is no there, there.
This was all very amusing, and I would hold out to the readers this is exhibit “A” for how a liberal reacts to losing their ass when they can’t come up with more examples of The Rude Dog’s certitude.
December 4th, 2008 - 2:34 pm
I don’t need for you to be anything at all. But once again you still haven’t answered the question. Which is it? Nature or nurture? Some combination of both? If you say that you don;t know it will be the first time on this blog I have ever seen you come out with anything other than absolute certainty of the rightness of your assertions.
And seriously, painting me as some political activist and typing the word “liberal” or some euphemeism for it, and then finding a way to segue into your anti-Islam crap does not equal me “losing my ass”. For all your dancing, you haven’t answered a thing, even after I satisfied your made-up need to have me demonstrate your “certitude”. Since you brought that back again I guess I should take some solace. Apparently I am useful to you as a “Word of the Day” calendar.
December 4th, 2008 - 2:43 pm
You aren’t that useful really, sorry to mislead you.
There is no nature or nurtue. Neither is provable.
Anti-Islam crap? So you are admitting that the boy-raping Mullahs are mainstream Islam? Alright!
Maybe they were borm that way…
December 4th, 2008 - 2:47 pm
What is wrong with latte? Rude, I was going to give up on this argument, but I think I see where one of our disconnects lay. You say:
“The obliviousness of people like you ignoring prison sex, fetishism, the ancient world, Mullahs and their little boys, and many other instances where people choose to engage in sexual acts, is the greatest amusement of all”
The point is we aren’t talking about “fetish”. Homosexual orientation is not the same thing as freaky sex, or sexual abuse. On one hand I’m arguing for a biological basis to sexual orientation, and on the other you are arguing against abherant behavior. We aren’t talking about the same things. First we have to define what we are talking about.
December 4th, 2008 - 3:01 pm
So you collapse into skepticism after all, and are claiming that it is outside the scope of science. If so, then cut out the crap about waiting on the research. Even if after 50 years of looking a consensus developed one way or the other you’d just treat it like anthropogenic climate change and stick your head in the sand.
As for that sentence about “boy-raping Mullahs”…umm, what? Is that even tangent to the topic? I only passingly referred to your smoke-and-mirrors mention of Islam, but it seems I scratched your persistent itch. I’ll stop there, since making any other statments about th etpic will probably just lead you down more rabbit trails. But thank you for answering the question…however you should strive for more than just blanket skepticism in your worldview, especially since so much of what you believe seems so bereft of skeptical thought.
December 5th, 2008 - 12:30 am
Gag. This is boring.
When you sex pioneers set everyone straight, no pun intended, I’ll buy your book.
DMG and kitty cat, you can play together on this one, I could care less.
Why are you two so addicted to TRN?
December 6th, 2008 - 12:53 am
Jesu Christo Santa Maria Carumba!
Look at you bastardos go. It is an honor to meet actual fagologists!
So wonderful that thirty years ago, the medical community said men sucking men was a disorder, but today, it is as normal as straight sex, just with some doo on your stick…
So a few doctors take the baloney up the trunk and a few nurses have gay uncles and now gay is the new straight. Sounds like science to me.
Look at you fagologists, using words like “aberrant” as if gay sex were the norm. You are simply pretending that homo-sex is the new norm, it ain’t beetches.
It might be ok for a fifty year old man to tell your sons sucking dicks is just like getting with the ladies, but everyone else thinks that’s a bad idea.
Is it just a coincidence that a someone called DMG Dick-Muching-Gremlin awhile ago? And catscratch, if your pussy itches, it’s time to wash that thing with a man’s tounge.
Unless you are a man, in which case you are on the proper post with a name like that.
Peace out with each others asses fagologists, and remember, doodoo on your pee stick is normal.
December 7th, 2008 - 10:49 am
You delete my posts and allow that garbage to go up? It’s like someone dared him to see how many times he could type “fag” in a single post. Just garbage.
December 7th, 2008 - 1:50 pm
El Bastardo is deleted 10 to 1 against you and DMG. Only about half of your posts are deleted, whereas about 90% of El Bastardo’s stuff goes into the void.
I would challenge you that he typed “fagologist” and never used “fag” proper. I would also point out that this is a cartoon you are arguing with. I think a wandering desperado named “El Bastardo” is as real as a hat wearing boxer named “The Rude Dog”, yet you can’t seem to get enough, which leads me to the following conclusion.
You and DMG are my trailer park whores. The more I mistreat you, the more you both come around. When you are ignored (deleted) you pine away for my attention. Both of you address The Rude Dog directly, as if you have some inside knowledge of who I am. Even on the Grove Park post, which I did not write, you still addressed me.
This is simply because of our relationship, in which I am a wife-beater wearing wise ass, who slaps his bitches around regardless of whether I am right or wrong, and you two can’t get enough of it.
I enjoy that I have so many eager bitches that will lap up my vitriol and drink it down with a grin.
Your so-called serious efforts at “debate” are fun to skirt, mock, and sometimes play out for other readers to see the finer points of your concern trolling.
Eventually, after repeated Nazi-lite references, claims of my ignorance, and accusations of my hiding a secret sexual agenda, you become boring.
December 8th, 2008 - 11:26 am
Well, we do keep coming around. After all, reading your posts is kinda like watching Bumfights. As hideously wrong as you are on virtually everything, it’s kinda funny to watch you foam at the mouth. I think the only thing DMG and I have ever asked for was the opportunity to let our commentary stand. It could only be good for you to generate traffic here, after all…it would help pay the bills.
December 8th, 2008 - 2:35 pm
If you call making you my trailer park whore, foaming at the mouth, than I won’t spoil it for you.
You two dancing bears are not responsible for any traffic. In fact, trolls tend to hurt traffic.
You don’t have any right to publish here, that’s why you are my bitches and you crave my attention.
Also, you concern over my bills can be addressed when you send me a check. You can use the TRN contact page.
Go ahead and spread that wealth, be a good liberal and lead by example.
December 19th, 2008 - 3:57 pm
Scientism.
That’s the name for what passes as science in relation to these hot button issues.