Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Logic 101: Birds and Bees Edition
If homosexuality means being attracted to members of one’s own sex, then the following two statements can not both be true — however much each is seen as gospel by our progressive friends.
- Being homosexual is not a preference, but rather an orientation — that is, not a choice, but simply how someone is born.
- Being male or female is a choice, not a matter of birth and biology.
Because, obviously, if the second is true then every homosexual can choose to be a person of the opposite sex and so, voila!, heterosexual.
Published in Education
Interesting that this view isn’t popular. As I read it I found it pretty sensible; it was a view I hadn’t thought about before.
Maybe some part of it is that the traditional positive characteristics of a woman revolve around feelings, gentleness, comfort, cooperation, etc. – all of which make the activities in bed sort of flow naturally, without it being a big interruption. It seems kind of sweet.
Whereas the traditional positive characteristics of men revolve around punching and stabbing and and back-slaps and macho-y competitive behavior. All of which makes a sudden switch to sexual intimacy with each other to be a bit jarring. It seems kind of silly and comical.
I agree with you here again. And I think this is us being reasonable, compassionate, and realistic. And this attitude should satisfy anyone who is different, and it is all they have a right to expect from their fellow man, people who are different from them.
Which is why I so get my back up when the activists on their side insist on making my thoughts illegal, and my acceptance of them and anything they want to do compulsory under threat of social destruction or even arrest. They are not “letting me do me”, as you say. Now I fight.
I am a Matrix fan and bought the new movie on Bluray. Among the cast and crew interviews the director/writer Lana Wachowski was prominently featured. Wachowski herself featured white and orange dreadlocks, a lisp and seemed a caricature of … whatever. So much affectation. It was kind of sad.
For what it’s worth, the movies went from great (The Matrix) to awful (every Matrix movie since The Matrix).
I’m not suggesting that the movies paralleled the psychological breakdown of their directors. Not suggesting that at all. Probably just a coincidence.
Sounds positively Greek: women are for making children, other men are for love.
Henry Henry Henry . . . it’s already confusing enough what the left has come up with. Now you’re bringing logic into it . . .
Homophobe.
Henry:
I figure that accounts for a small single-digit percentage of all men. Gay men are gay, flat out: heterosexual men don’t have sex with other men, and gay men are rarely in doubt of their sexual orientation.
Lesbians — gay women — are another matter. I think a substantial proportion of lesbians are bi-sexual.
There are a sizable amount of gay men who have had sex with women. What has always bothered me is how can a truly “gay ” man “perform” for a women, if he was born gay and is only attracted to men?
I think a substantial proportion of lesbians are bi-sexual.
Huge amount of young women are now bi-sexual. It apparently ain’t no big thing no more. But apparently according to bi-sexuals my daughter knows, the sex is much better with men, and most want a man in their life to raise children as well as to provide for them. So seemingly these bi-sexual women are often willing to give up the lesbian life to marry a man and have children.
That sounds like a family.
The “f” word?
But why would we want to do that?
A good and often overlooked point. I’ve known several ladies who are as straight as a Kansas highway, with loving husbands and children, but who would indulge now and then in sex with another woman, or in a mixed group. Does that make them “Bi”? I think not; rather, I would see them as straight, playful and rambunctious. But under current dogma, they would be listed in the sexuality alphabet soup.
People are different, humanity is varied and awesome, and we have a Christian duty to tolerance. So I have no objection to men or women who prefer to have their orgasms with others of the same sex.
But grooming my children for their perversions, or advocating for mutilation and hormonal manipulation in order to try to be what one cannot be in order to satisfy a mental illness, those are beyond the pale.
My understanding is that it breaks down as:
Lesbian couples report the highest rate of abuse.
Then straight couples.
Then gay male couples.
My gut tells me that this is because women are faster to report abuse than men.
Oh, you might have no interest at all in doing that, Z. But you could do that, if your sex is a choice. That’s what “choice” means. And if sex is a choice, then whether or not you prefer same-sex relationships is also a choice.
Of course, I don’t think that our sex is a choice. I think that, barring a tiny fraction of people who are physiologically abnormal, we’re all born unambiguously male or female and we remain that sex for our entire lives, despite whatever efforts some may make to alter that.
I suspect homosexuals are a mix of nature and nurture: some are born homosexual, some achieve homosexuality, and some have homosexuality… well, as I said.
Talk about constructs…hmm.
You realise, of course, that by that logic you could also declare yourself a woman and get in on that lesbian on lesbian action. What’s stopping you?
Yes, by that logic. But of course I don’t subscribe to that logic. I’m merely pointing out how absurd it is to believe those mutually contradictory assertions.
And yet many people in the LGB and T communities seem to.
I don’t know that gender dysphoria is a choice, but I like how you set it up.
No, I don’t think it’s a choice. I think it’s a rare psychological illness, and that the vast majority of “trans” people are just silly and self-indulgent.
Makes sense. I think our society has moved to accept this as a fact. Now the self-indulgent are pushing to teach this as normal to children in kindergarten. A bridge too far.
They can also become heterosexual when their partners choose to be persons of the opposite sex.
(Someone should tell Anthony Kennedy.)
The vast majority of people are silly and self-indulgent. Present company excluded of course. It’s all the other people who are like that.
That’s facile, Zafar. I’m speaking of a particular instance of nonsensical belief.
Most people who consider themselves “trans” are no more “trans” than I, a virile and manly heterosexual male, am “trans.” They’re confused and/or self-indulgent people trying to find a special identity in a trendy delusion. They didn’t question their own sexuality until they discovered this suddenly fashionable movement that accords special status to people who are “brave” enough to come out.
It’s a crock, an absurdist dodge to avoid being a real person pursing meaningful choices. It seduces thousands of gullible and foolish young people, primarily girls, to take an easy path to peer approval, with the eager encouragement of a bunch of emotionally stunted online trans enthusiasts eager to heap praise on the poor witless children who fall for their rubbish.
Sure, lots of people are silly and self-indulgent. Probably all of us, from time to time. But only a small fraction fall for the foolishness that they can change their sex, have their breasts or their penises hacked off, and pump themselves full of hormones their bodies weren’t evolved to process in an effort to achieve what can’t be achieved.
Those are the silly and self-indulgent people I’m talking about, and the particular silliness they’re indulging.
Not facile Henry. Charity begins at home. We could all use a little humility. Imnsho.
Not me. I’m way more humble than all of you.
I know it janaab, that’s why I’m your number one fan. Your humility is both overwhelming and well known. I seek shelter in its shadow.
Hey, the Charles Schultz teenage church comics joke about that is online!
That’s nice. Now relate that to the current context for me.
The current context is an epidemic of young women wishing to become not-women, eager to receive testosterone injections that will permanently change their bodies, considering having “top surgery,” as it’s euphemistically called: to have their breasts removed; and “bottom surgery” to be irreversibly mutilated.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of young men compete against women, dominating with their superior athletic ability and destroying the dreams of young female athletes.
Also meanwhile, people are fired from their jobs, hounded out of school, and in some jurisdictions criminally charged, for failing to use the language demanded by an activist trans mob.
That’s the context: a lot of victims of a misguided fad. Tell me how we should apply charity and humility to that, to help those victims.
Maybe they live in Iran?