Dr. Keith Ablow says "environment determines sexual orientation"

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I agree with you somewhat, but I'll go even further. I'm not sure why it it so important for it to be all about lack of choice for some people. Either way, our attractions aren't wrong.

very good!

is no wrong first place but

internet a progress

10 points ta internet house

little yayssssssss

 

[pat grimshaw]

… I'm not sure why it it so important for it to be all about lack of choice for some people…

Do you mean the Gaga philosophy of 'Born This Way'?

 

[healingduck]

Fox being wrong?

:shock:

 

[MoltenRock III]

I think we know very, very little about sexuality.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

And I just don't see much intellectual honesty on either side.

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

And all the while you are naval gazing, hemming and hawing, and this or that, your audience had tuned you out and you are a mealy mouthed, pussified, liberal.

What you fail to understand is that what the hate mongers on the other side tout are ignorant one liners, and fallacies rooted in stereotypes, racism, and homophobia. What is imperative to do is meet such hostility with a complete, and utter destruction of their nonsense.

When these assholes use this line of attack it is not based on science, but rather a well honed, carefully crafted attack to deny gays of rights. Drawing a line in the sand that says, "NO! We did not choose this, we were born this way" shuts that attack down, and in most people's mind today equals sympathy and understanding that being gay isn't a choice and it isn't for the vast majority of people.

So go ahead, write in your innermost thoughts to your journal about the ins and outs of sexuality and seeking labels and this and that, while never having had sex, a boyfriend, a relationship, and/or marriage. This is not an attack on you, but rather the effort, fight, and well honed retorts formed in the fighting for equal rights so you can have the luxury of writing in high and lofty tones about biological honesty, and so that you too have an opportunity to find out who you are, how you fit in, and be accepted for it.

 

[Swellegant]

When these assholes use this line of attack it is not based on science, but rather a well honed, carefully crafted attack to deny gays of rights. Drawing a line in the sand that says, "NO! We did not choose this, we were born this way" shuts that attack down, and in most people's mind today equals sympathy and understanding that being gay isn't a choice and it isn't for the vast majority of people.

I think you are quite wrong there, and that this position is part of the problem.

By reducing the discourse to the lowest common denominator, you allow the idiots to set the agenda. The whole question of civil rights gets boiled down to an infantile "Yuh-huh!"/"Nuh-uh!" screaming match that gets nobody anywhere.

By answering a simplistic error with another simplistic error, you present a nice big broad target for the idiots to attack. "I had no choice" is an incredibly weak position to defend, as you did indeed have a choice about coming out and acting on your homosexual impulses instead of suppressing them. By sticking to this Johnny One Note defense, you leave your position open to attack, not only from morons but from trained experts.

The issue that onetwothreefour raises is an important one: very little research is being done from a progressive and truly scientific standpoint; all of the research being carried out now is tainted by an agenda, and that agenda is the question of choice... a question that was set by demagogues and their moron followers, not by scientists.

What shuts down the debate is follow-through, not simple negation. Someone tells me I had a choice; OK, so then next question, why don't I have the right to make that choice? How was it a wrong choice? You'll find they have no answer for that one except to fall back on either the Bible or a misunderstanding of nature. Well, the Bible you can dismiss out of hand as a matter of belief rather than of fact, and the misunderstanding of nature you can correct with facts rather than beliefs.

By harping on the question of causes, the discourse has been distracted from results, which is a much more persuasive issue. "There's nothing inherently wrong with homosexual behavior" was proved in the 70s, but nobody has bothered to reinforce that with good scientific study that refutes the root of the opposition. We're so caught up in trying to prove that we had no choice that we can't prove that we made the right choice. But our choice to act on our desires is proveably healthy, while we can also prove that the choice to not act on our desires is inherently harmful.

Answering ignorance with ignorance is dangerous and useless. You can only answer ignorance with a patient and never-ending exposition of truth.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I think you are quite wrong there, and that this position is part of the problem.

By reducing the discourse to the lowest common denominator, you allow the idiots to set the agenda. The whole question of civil rights gets boiled down to an infantile "Yuh-huh!"/"Nuh-uh!" screaming match that gets nobody anywhere.

By answering a simplistic error with another simplistic error, you present a nice big broad target for the idiots to attack. "I had no choice" is an incredibly weak position to defend, as you did indeed have a choice about coming out and acting on your homosexual impulses instead of suppressing them. By sticking to this Johnny One Note defense, you leave your position open to attack, not only from morons but from trained experts.

The issue that onetwothreefour raises is an important one: very little research is being done from a progressive and truly scientific standpoint; all of the research being carried out now is tainted by an agenda, and that agenda is the question of choice... a question that was set by demagogues and their moron followers, not by scientists.

What shuts down the debate is follow-through, not simple negation. Someone tells me I had a choice; OK, so then next question, why don't I have the right to make that choice? How was it a wrong choice? You'll find they have no answer for that one except to fall back on either the Bible or a misunderstanding of nature. Well, the Bible you can dismiss out of hand as a matter of belief rather than of fact, and the misunderstanding of nature you can correct with facts rather than beliefs.

By harping on the question of causes, the discourse has been distracted from results, which is a much more persuasive issue. "There's nothing inherently wrong with homosexual behavior" was proved in the 70s, but nobody has bothered to reinforce that with good scientific study that refutes the root of the opposition. We're so caught up in trying to prove that we had no choice that we can't prove that we made the right choice. But our choice to act on our desires is proveably healthy, while we can also prove that the choice to not act on our desires is inherently harmful.

Answering ignorance with ignorance is dangerous and useless. You can only answer ignorance with a patient and never-ending exposition of truth.

gonna read dat later got chorins ta do

but sniffs good!

 

[rareboy]

Ablow is full of shit.

But FOXholes just eat this shit up.

But just watch this crap get picked up by the conservatives and run up the old flagpole over the next year as the fight continues to limit or overturn homo marriage and to overturn the overturn of DADT.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

gons read it need ice ma head

quicky point> folk not this got debate first place
if so call countrys not gun ya head or of whateva same thang

good luck countrys alls chains up in ther cultures male extraordinairs up ta taday

coor more ice please

 

[HoodedRat]

He's a member of one of the pseudo -scientific, know-it-all, 'psych-professions', so it is only to be expected that he will spout utter bullshit.

 

[Ram]

If there are hot naked men in my environment right now, it will definitely determine my sexual orientation.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

He's a member of one of the pseudo -scientific, know-it-all, 'psych-professions', so it is only to be expected that he will spout utter bullshit.

lot professions world ova folk got justify it cause but no say nothin or ya road kill in da corridors theys walk

lot cultures real got lot grow up do out da babble their cultures wakamoolee ans get on with stuff a matter much

lucky this sex site HAAAAA

Fleshbods keep quiet while ya fuck their brains haaaaaaa

-

add if folk world ova in ways support in ways some profession be usefull thens just easy money fa fancy wheels etc etc but much da ways of male etc doins alway in play
'SSSSSH! '
oooh rats

 

[MoltenRock III]

Answering ignorance with ignorance is dangerous and useless. You can only answer ignorance with a patient and never-ending exposition of truth.

You're dead wrong. Period.

By the time you start whiffling and waffling those that seek to deny you your rights have rolled their eyes, and changed the channel. If you can't boil your point or view to sound bytes and one liners, you're toast. Talking in lofty tones to relatively ignorant people is the best way for you to turn them off. If you've ever had experience with media interviews or on air TV appearances to plug your position you'd understand what I'm getting at.

It's fine to talk ad nauseam when you are preaching to the choir, but a far different thing when you are in the lion's den. If people enjoyed this type of in-depth response PBS would be the #1 rated news channel in the US.

*shrug* It is what it is.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

You're dead wrong. Period.

By the time you start whiffling and waffling those that seek to deny you your rights have rolled their eyes, and changed the channel. If you can't boil your point or view to sound bytes and one liners, you're toast. Talking in lofty tones to relatively ignorant people is the best way for you to turn them off. If you've ever had experience with media interviews or on air TV appearances to plug your position you'd understand what I'm getting at.

It's fine to talk ad nauseam when you are preaching to the choir, but a far different thing when you are in the lion's den. If people enjoyed this type of in-depth response PBS would be the #1 rated news channel in the US.

*shrug* It is what it is.

say fuckkkkk yeah ta dat ans not cause

wait fa anyone do alls da writin cause

 

[bendted]

Another heterosexual claiming to know what it's like to be gay, or its cause, and people actually give credence to what he says. Swell.

 

[bulge]

It is impossible to liken it to pedophilia as most gay guys consider guys below 20 as disgusting girls.

Inprisoned men only follow their true self. Being imprisoned allows them to find the pretext to follow their true self. BTW 80% of imprisoned men, which is not astonishing as 10% men are core gays. 80% are more or less bisexual and 10% are core str8s.

Unresolved issues connected to females is the doctor's own str8 deception. Men are essentially homosexual and are NOT str8 whatsoever. They are only drilled into str8ness as puppy dogs.

Transexuals are essentially and ONLY str8. Otherwise they would NEVER whatsoever be transexual.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

It is impossible to liken it to pedophilia as most gay guys consider guys below 20 as disgusting girls.

Inprisoned men only follow their true self. Being imprisoned allows them to find the pretext to follow their true self. BTW 80% of imprisoned men, which is not astonishing as 10% men are core gays. 80% are more or less bisexual and 10% are core str8s.

Unresolved issues connected to females is the doctor's own str8 deception. Men are essentially homosexual and are NOT str8 whatsoever. They are only drilled into str8ness as puppy dogs.

Transexuals are essentially and ONLY str8. Otherwise they would NEVER whatsoever be transexual.

ooh so me is disgustin girl dat explain lots

 

[TheOscar]

Fox News: does your stupidity know no bounds?!

 

[rareboy]

^ No FOX is not stupid.

They know exactly what they are doing. They thrive on creating a narrative and then being able to cite from it endlessly until it becomes a part of their mainstream chatter.

It is the people who watch FOX and believe what they hear who are about as dumb as a box of rocks.

Fortunately, all in all, very few people actually watch FOX.

And most of them will be dead in about ten years anyway.

 

[bankside]

I think we know very, very little about sexuality.

What I find troubling is that the people who either research sexuality or claim to know about it have an agenda they feel is supported by their beliefs on the origins of homosexuality.

I hear some gay people and generally most liberal people say people are born gay, and for some reason I don't understand, that idea is linked to a defense of homosexuality.

I then hear conservatives saying homosexuality is based on environmental factors, past relationships, etc., and for some reason I don't understand, that idea is linked to saying homosexuality is illegitimate.

There is a fundamental problem here in that people don't seem to want the truth on either side. They want to form a position. For me the legitimacy of homosexuality is never in question. I don't care why someone wants to be with someone of the same sex. They have nothing to prove to me.I am however disturbed at the stagnation of our understanding of sexuality because the legitimacy of homosexuality is on the table for both sides. How can you do honest research if you feel you need to either cling to the very simplistic explanation that people are born gay or if you have to cling to the idea that gay people can and should change?

Why is the origins of homosexuality a threat to its legitimacy to begin with? Do we have to understand why someone has blue eyes to accept him or her?

I do believe that sexuality is complicated and I have felt frustrated trying to explore my own sexuality (which is also complicated and not expressible in clear ways and has never been expressed with another person) because when I speak to psychologists they speak in politically correct aphorisms about being gay and seem to know very little theory on sexuality, leading me to believe theory has been stagnated in an attempt to line up with a political position rather than doing pure research with no motive. And then on the other side you have the reparative people wit their pop psychology theories on homosexuality which they inextricably link (and therefore invalidate to me) to Jesus and the whole conservative movement. I am so open to being gay. I just don't quite meet the definition. I know I'm not straight. I have no idea what I am and I'm almost 29 and I would like to understand myself better and explore myself and I am open to whatever the answer is--so I am someone who would like to know what influences sexuality. And at the same time I am not opposed to homosexuality in any way. I don't identify entirely as gay but I don't hide that I'm confused and most people who know me for simplicity sake identify me as gay. This is not a case of being in the closet or wanting to go back in. I look at myself unflinchingly.

And I just don't see much intellectual honesty on either side.

BTW, I consider myself progressive (voted for Nader, Kerry, Obama), just not a group thinker. I say that preemptively because if I wrote this on the Huffingpost I would be labeled a tea partier and worse. I notice sometimes liberals will come across something unfamiliar, that's not a liberal platitude, and not realizing it's actually a progressive sentiment will go into attack mode. I've had that bad experience before and I guess I am just wary because I don't that I've written anything like this on JUB before that I so much felt risked crossing the party line. I am writing this mostly because I don't feel I have encountered who think the same way I do on this or who even seem to think about it at all and instead become somewhat reactive thinkers.

Thank you for indulging me.

100% excellent. (except the Nader part... )

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

100% excellent. (except the Nader part... )

wot excellant about it?

but for lot words