Orientation is not behaviour. Conflating orientation with action is a common reductionist tactic.
I'm talking about complicated webs of motivations driving people, you're talking about an invisible yet inherent and immutable trait that dictates a person's existence, and you're calling me the reductionist? Reductionism is exactly what you're doing, you're taking a complex topic like human sexuality and giving one single consideration weight over the entire thing.
Illogical bullshit. That's neither a premise nor a logical conclusion.
"People don't choose to be born with dwarfism" --> "Oh, so you're saying prejudice would be fine if they did!?"
That's not the premise I was responding to. You were saying considering something a choice is rationalization to hate it. Your logic is:
"People choose to wear sneakers" -> "You're just rationalizing your hatred of people wearing sneakers!"
How exactly does treating a characteristic as not a result of choice mean one must treat it as a "monolith"? Do you think black people are a monolith because they didn't choose their ethnicity?
I think the thing that makes someone black is the same for all black people. I don't believe that is true of being gay.
And "yell you into submission"-- yeah, sorry, but my tone isn't going to be very amicable when you're being this incredibly denigrating to me. Insisting my lived experience is false; that it was my own choice to be assaulted; that I deserve to be discriminated against in work and employment. You treat me as if I'm less than human. I'm not going to soften my replies.
Half of that is incorrect inferences you are making, and half of that is you implying the wrong thing. You bring up housing or work discrimination based on conversation where the discrimination is "housing programs intended for parents with kids aren't meant for people without kids" and "jobs teaching religious education aren't for people who are opposed to those religious doctrines." I know you're not out there trying to steal programs from single mothers or teach religion in a Catholic school, so give it a rest.
You "chose to be assaulted" is nonsense from nowhere. I said nothing like that. I'm guessing you're trying to say you were assaulted for not being straight, but you're inserting victim blaming into the middle. If a woman chooses to be a waitress and is assaulted at work, you're neither going to deny her agency in that choice nor claim she chose to be assaulted. I'm also not going to deny her agency nor claim she chose to be assaulted. Why are you tacking bad motives onto my words?
I have, as supportive evidence, the near-universal testimony and lived experience of the community in question, who're literally telling you they didn't choose.
You keep saying that, but there are many gay people who don't agree with you. You're taking political slogans as some universal agreement. Example:
Is sexuality purely the result of our biology? Brandon Ambrosino argues that simplistic explanations have ignored the fluid, shape-shifting nature of our desires.
www.bbc.com
" I don’t think I was born gay. I don’t think I was born straight. I was born the way all of us are born: as a human being with a seemingly infinite capacity to announce myself, to re-announce myself, to try on new identities like spring raincoats, to play with limiting categories, to challenge them and topple them, to cultivate my tastes and preferences, and, most importantly, to love and to receive love. "
Is that person a bigot? Is the gay person claiming everyone has infinite capacity to try on different things, to cultivate our tastes and preferences, rationalizing their bigotry?
And all you have is... moronic, denigrating speculation that we must be sexually excited by danger.
You're missing the word some. I speculate that some people are aroused by danger, because that's undeniably true in other contexts and you're not going to dispute it.
You: Nobody would put themselves in danger for sexual preference.
Me: Some people specifically prefer danger in their sex life.
You: You think all gay people are sexually excited by danger!
I mean, come on. You have to at least be able to concede that point.
Interesting
So, being interested in the opposite sex is a choice
Let me put it this way: all people like food, some have different tastes, some of which is natural and some of which is cultivated behavior. Some people like pickles right away, while most don't, but anyone can decide they want to like pickles and eat them until they acquire the taste, and the people who like pickles to begin with have no obligation to eat them. I'm sure many biological or cultural factors exist outside a person's control that contribute to the proclivity to enjoy pickles, but nobody is born inherently a pickle-eater, nor is anyone incapable of becoming a pickle-eater.