So basically you're ignoring what the OP specifically says and go for an ad-hominem attack rather then actually try to discredit his argument.Pluvia said:snip
So basically you're ignoring what the OP specifically says and go for an ad-hominem attack rather then actually try to discredit his argument.Pluvia said:snip
And both absurd and terrifying. At the same time.Pluvia said:Yeah. "I mean there's nothing wrong with being black, and it's clearly not a choice, it's just why do people get offended if I point out that acting black is a choice? Being black isn't a choice obviously, and don't get me wrong there's absolutely nothing wrong with being black I'm completely fine with it, it's just I don't see why people get offended if I point out that black people choose to act black."
That's quite an accurate analogy of the OP I'd say.
While ostensibly true, consider how absurd that sounds to people for whom their sexuality comes as natural as their skin-colour or handedness.MrMixelPixel said:But surely the end goal for the gay rights movement would be to remove most of that discrimination?
"It doesn't matter that I chose to be gay, or if I was born gay. The point is I am, and that's okay"
That's not an ad-hominem. At best you could call it a bad metaphor but, it's not a personal attack. You could call it a false analogy fallacy, I guess, but you would need to explain way.Phrozenflame500 said:So basically you're ignoring what the OP specifically says and go for an ad-hominem attack rather then actually try to discredit his argument.Pluvia said:snip
Yeah, it was also a choice for Jews during WWII to walk around in the street punching out the SchutzStaffel and waving "Fuck Hitler with the Star of David" flags. They didn't do it, because it wasn't a choice at all. The similarity here is that you don't just choose to fuck a chick if you're gay. You might find it unappealing, or even repulsive. I know I find eating out girl to be the most digusting thing in the world, next to being in eyesight of insects.rutger5000 said:I didn't quite catch that last bit. But I've think I've got the gist of it.
My view on the matter is that it's obviously a possibility for a gay man to just bite the bullet. It wouldn't be healthy, and in most cases extremely rude to the female. But it's an option. In other words it's a choice not to do so, and just go with what you feel like.
If I would be at the far gay side of the sexual spectrum, I think I'd be like: So I happen to be gay, so I'm going with the obvious healthy CHOICE to have sex with men instead of women.
I doubt that would change much. Have you seen how majorities tend to react when they are discriminated against? They do so without any awareness of the parallels. Hell, most of the time they seem to try and dig up justifications on how they are actually the victims in all this. This is why we have all this bitching going on about how gays are threatening marriage.SushiJaguar said:Honestly, I sometimes think the only thing that'll change people's minds on this matter would be being discriminated against themselves.
Just in case someone hasn't said this:rutger5000 said:Honestly why is it? Don't get me wrong I've got no problems without homosexuality, in fact I can see myself experimenting some day. But for the live of me I can't see why it's most often considered offensive to think of it as a choice.
I can see that being more sexually attracted to the same sex isn't something you do so purposfully/consiously. So if you purely regard homosexuality as being dominantly sexually attracted to the same sex. Then yes it isn't really a choice, more something that just happens to you. But surely everything beyond that is a choice right?
Again I want to stress that I think it's the right choice. Sexuality is a good thing, so I'd encourage people to do whatever they want on that area as long as all involved parties are consentfull.
But still acting upon your homosexuality is surely a choice right? So why is it considered offensive to regard it as such? Especially as the alternative is to regard it as something like an affliction, which I personally would find much more offensive.
Yeah. Those who don't are referred to as practicing Celibacy.IceForce said:Do you hear people talk about "acting upon" their heterosexuality?