Libertarians Unite

[Nick]

Racetyme, you're dealing with a professional forum debater here. You're in for a kick in the teeth.

[Nick]

ALL forms of addiction are harmful.

Even Cantr??


And thanks Farmer, I'm not that great at debating... (perhaps I should have joined Debate Team....)

Yes, even Cantr.

And I wasn't making those comments simply to aggravate you, but I was indeed playing the devil's advocate, often stating something just because it's a valid point rather than my own personal belief.

I believe in total legalisation, from tylenol to cocaine. The wrong people are making money off of it being illegal. It's not even about whether or not we should 'encourage' drug use, it will go on regardless.

If crack was legalised tonight, and tommorow you saw you could buy 20-stones at your local gas station. Are you gonna smoke crack?

OF COURSE NOT!!! Everybody knows it's not a good idea to smoke crack.
But then maybe we could better aid addicts, and separate heavy drug addiction (which will always be a problem) from the drug industry (which can be changed!).

[Racetyme]

I'm not such a shitty debater myself Nick. I went to state last year as a freshman.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with you Nick. Making drugs illegal causes a myriad of problems that I have already discussed but were not commented on, and as far as I can tell, dosn't stop anyone from doing it. And yes, I know plenty of people who use drugs.

[formerly known as hf]

Title: Cultural context and the conventions of science journalism: Drama and contradiction in media coverage of biological ideas about sexuality
Author(s): Wilcox SA
Source: CRITICAL STUDIES IN MEDIA COMMUNICATION 20 (3): 225-247 SEP 2003

- describes how biological determinsim has been portrayed by the media, how, admitedly it has (in the US) been taken as an argument by homosexuals against the claim of the religious right that homosexuality is a choice - but that it has bent and distorted the science that is still somewhat inconclusive

Title: Immutability, science and legislative debate over gay, lesbian and bisexual rights
Author(s): Mucciaroni G, Killian ML
Source: JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 47 (1): 53-77 2004

- describes again how scientific studies are taken, and distorted, byt the media and both pro-and anit- homosexual rights activists - and that many gay rights activits have conceeded that sexuality is, or is at least partially, a choice after recent research

Title: From gender inversion to choice and back changing perceptions of the aetiology of lesbianism over three historical periods
Author(s): Gottschalk L
Source: WOMENS STUDIES INTERNATIONAL FORUM 26 (3): 221-233 MAY-JUN 2003

For women who became lesbians in the 1950s and 1960s, a belief in a biological basis was overwhelmingly the dominant account. In the 1970s and early 1980s, choice was the dominant account, and in the 1990s, there is a tendency to go back to biological explanations.

- shows the fluctuation in what is taken and believed

Title: THE BIOLOGY OF HOMOSEXUALITY - SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE
Author(s): DECECCO JP, PARKER DA
Source: JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY 28 (1-2): 1-27 1995

this paper sets forth a general conception of homosexuality that includes its psychological and socio-cultural dimensions along with the biological.

The lists goes on...
For every paper that claims that homosexuality is biologically determined, there is one that says it is a choice.

The idea of biological determinism has been embraced by many gay activists in recent years - as it is a strong argument against the argument by the religious right that it is a choice.

I would certainly agree that biological determinism plays a very strong part in transgendered people. - the brains, hormones, etc. etc. are the opposite of the physical body.

I would also agree that there is strong evidence that homosexuality is genetic / biological - and I'm happy with that.

But, as all the studies conclude, it is not a simple one or the other situation.

Whilst many homosexuals may feel that they were born gay, that it isn't a choice, and it is determined by biology, there are also those, myself included, that know that their sexuality was a concious choice.

By looking at it along a homosexual / heterosexual split - we are ignoring the fact that is often pointed out in this research, and which I touched on earlier, is that sexuality is not a homo / hetero situation. There is a very wide exapnse of grey area in between.

Many, myself included, are neither one nor the other. I see my sexuality - bisexuality - as a choice. I have never felt I was 'born' bisexual - I feel very much that my sexuality was and is a concious choice.

Just to say that it does not ALWAYS play a major part - and that your statement above, was especially offensive, as you took it and applied it directly to me, with the words 'making you predetermined to be homosexual'.

You applied to me, an individual, something that has been proven to be the case, in most, but not all situations. You implied that the research about biological orgins of sexuality was all-encompasing, when the researchers themselves are keen to point out that biology is not always the case.

EDIT: (edited for clairty and to make it more concise)

[formerly known as hf]

You took research - good research and convincing research - but you presetned it in a very misleading way

You presented it as if it is always the case that biology determines sexuality.

The scientists themselves have said this is not alwasy the case - just the case of most situations.

By applying to me something which I feel does not apply to me, by applying something through mis-representation, you were particularly offensive.

I do not appreciate being told why I am who I am by someone who does not know much about me than posts on a forum and an IRC channel. I do not appreciate seeing scientific studies misrepresented, then having that misrepresentaion applied to me, personally.

- to assume that because of some science you know of via the economist that you know why I am who I am, why my sexuality is what it is.

It is deeply offensive to see you seemingly dispute what I know about myself, as if, because of this research you read about, you know more about the origins of my sexuality than myself

[Nick]

Whilst many homosexuals may feel that they were born gay, that it isn't a choice, and it is determined by biology, there are also those, myself included, that know that their sexuality was a concious choice.
...
Many, myself included, are neither one nor the other. I see my sexuality - bisexuality - as a choice. I have never felt I was 'born' bisexual - I feel very much that my sexuality was and is a concious choice.

Just like anyone else, I don't have the definite answer.

I just don't fully understand how it even could be a choice. Say one day you get beat up by some ignoramus for not being "straight". You get fed up with how society treats people of alternate lifestyles.

Can you all of the sudden decide "You know what? I think I'm going to only be attracted to girls now."?

[formerly known as hf]

I just don't fully understand how it even could be a choice.

Neither do most people. As I have said, for most, gay or straight, sexuality is not a choice.

For others, it is a choice. Wether I end the night with a man or a woman is my own choice.
- This is certainly not the norm - I know that.

But to say there is no choice - or it is complete choice - both are incorrect arguments. To say that it is mostly biological, but it can be choice (for a variety of social and psychological reasions) is the correct stance.

It is this stance that most scientists take - that there is room for choice - that there are exceptions

[Savanik]

I'm gay, and I voted for Bush.

Twice.



Sav

[formerly known as hf]

Like I keep saying - generalisations about gay people are impossible and doomed to be wrong

[Nick]

I just don't fully understand how it even could be a choice.

Neither do most people. As I have said, for most, gay or straight, sexuality is not a choice.

For others, it is a choice. Wether I end the night with a man or a woman is my own choice.
- This is certainly not the norm - I know that.

But to say there is no choice - or it is complete choice - both are incorrect arguments. To say that it is mostly biological, but it can be choice (for a variety of social and psychological reasions) is the correct stance.

It is this stance that most scientists take - that there is room for choice - that there are exceptions

Just because you may live by the lifestyle in question, I don't think that makes you the high and mighty voice of truth on the issue.

This is what you believe, but it is by no means proven.

[formerly known as hf]

I'm not trying to be high and mighty, or particularly authorative.

I'm just trying to point out that, as with all good science, there is room for exception - and to paint it as 'all sexuality is determined by biology' as Race did - is wrong. It may be true in most situations - but certainly not in all

And that whilst for most it is not choice, for some it is - I was just trying to explain, as I know it can be difficult to understand, how it can be a choice...

[Nick]

Certainly? As in, definite?

I personally believe it's biological.

I believe I'm biologically "straight", and even if being gay became cool all of the sudden, I couldn't have a homosexual relationship. Even if for whatever reason I would want to, I could not make that choice. There is no choice involved for me.

[formerly known as hf]

You may believe it's biological for you

That's probably true. That's probably the case in most instances

but (for the umpteenth time) not for all people - for most - not all...
Even the scientists make a note that it's biological for most, but not all...

[Nick]

Well if a scientist said it, it must be true!
Can you say for sure you made the choice, farmer? Can you be sure that if you wanted to stop one 'side' of your sexuality, you could just as easily remake that choice?

I'm not saying I'm right, or that you're wrong. Just saying, this is some complex stuff that nobody really knows the answer to, so claiming you do is just absurd.

[formerly known as hf]

I'm not saying that because a scientist said it it must be right - I would never take that opinion!

I'm just saying that that's what the scientists that say biology is the cause say...

I am certain it's my own choice - I am certain that if I choose to 'settle down' with someone of one gender, that is my choice based on something other than simply the gender of that person

I'm not claiming to know the answer - not at all - just saying that if there is an answer - it's unlikely to a be a universal one - not one that fits for everybody - it will need to have different answers for different people - it is not choice for everyone - it is not biology for everyone - that there is unlikely to be 'just one answer'