POSITION: The idea of being born with a sexual orientation is simply a political talking point.

[videogamestashbox.com]

Below is a(surprisingly civil) convo from awhile back that I had on YouTube(of all places). It was in response to the 8th episode of a UK based show I regularly watched on YouTube. Figured my exchange in the comments would make an interesting enough thread to post on coli.

EDIT: Also I rather quote myself than rehash positions I've already come to a conclusion on. I.E. if I have to speak on this topic elsewhere on coli I can just quote my various positions made here.

The idea of being born with a sexual orientation is simply a political talking point.
PART 1 OF 4​

My Position - The idea of being born with a specific sexual orientation is simply a political talking point.
A person is born with the...

• Ability to be physically & psychologically stimulated
• Mental capacity to pattern match

A person has no ability to control what stimulates them physically be it...

• flesh/plastic
• man/woman
• real/digital (yes there are people with "digital partners" in places like japan)

Likewise a person doesn't control what stimulates them psychologically. That said they aren't born liking whatever stimulates them, they are simply born with the capacity to be stimulated. After that stimulation the brain keeps a tally on the stimulation and what caused it. No more no less. Anything more and I can't take you serious.


The question then becomes - .....How do you process your actions in relation to that stimulation?
Well, that process is mediated by culture & politics.


Lets explore the "theoretical limits" here both physical & psychological
Physical - I could have a daughter be violently raped against her will ....but her body can still have an orgasm. She didn't choose to have an orgasm and I couldn't fault her for that ....but culturally & politically we have a problem if she chooses to go back to that rapist on the grounds that her body responded to it.
Psychological - I could have a child be spoken to in such a way that they mentally find that person attractive. They didn't choose to find that person attractive and I couldn't fault them for that ...but culturally & politically we have a problem if they choose to go back to that person simply on the grounds that they mentally responded to it.

This goes for anything from...

• A bum ass dude trying to sweet talk my daughter out her pants
• A bum ass girl trying to sweet talk my son out his money
• or a homosexual situation that has happened to one of my children

IN CONCLUSION
A person is not born intrinsically liking whatever stimulates them before the stimulation actually occurs, they are simply born with the capacity to be stimulated. The brain keeps a running tally of that stimulation and what caused it. It's up to the person to choose how they react to said stimuli ...and that choice is mediated through culture & politics. Your gay because of your chosen actions in response to said stimuli not because your body responded to it in the first place. No more no less. Anything more and I can't take you serious.

The idea of being born with a sexual orientation is simply a political talking point.
PART 2 OF 4​

Thanks for the reply

REPLY 1 OF 3.

"How you react to stimuli IS NOT sexual attraction..."

In my "model" above the "reaction" is positioned as - engaging in a sexual act or not.
I.E. The person is deemed a homosexual because of their (re)actions not because of their composite feelings (sexual attraction)

"Sexual Attraction" would then fall under the end result of "pattern matching" that stimuli by the brain. (What stimulates you, it's extent, and relation to other stimuli is all constantly being tallied by the brain)

Generic A-political Example
Men who frequently masturbate to porn as opposed to sleeping with women are at risk to develop erectile dysfunction with women because they have become accustom to autoeroticism. The process by which that happens (though not guaranteed) is through that mental pattern matching. This is the same cognitive mechanism by which we can learn to read, form habits, develop preferences, ...ride a bike, etc etc etc.
I.E. No matter if he makes a conscious decision to indulge in a woman. He's been conditioned against it by way of earlier actions.




REPLY 2 OF 3.

"if I like being stimulated by girls, for instance, but I try to blunt the arousal, my sexual attraction is still there—I've just chosen not indulge it."

Correct, the attraction is still there because this mental process works in aggregate. Just because you have a new boyfriend doesn't mean you magically stop finding the previous one attractive (hell you may never stop)

The point is what you chose to indulge in is what I use to deem a person homosexual or not. A person has very little control over internal factors be it physical & psychological ...I use your cultural & political actions in response to said internal factors to make my call.




REPLY 3 OF 3.

"you can put that "reaction" in the realm of social conditioning, which pertains more to personality than sexual attraction"

I would say social conditioning (culture & politics) enters the discussion in two ways.

1. How you mentally go about the process of "choosing" if you will engage with a thing you've been stimulated by.
2. :The ways that affection is modeled (kissing, hugging, dates, sex acts, etc etc) and hence replicated in relation to that which you've already... ..

• ...been stimulated by
• ...chosen to engage with

The idea of being born with a sexual orientation is simply a political talking point.
PART 3 OF 4​

NOTE: at this point the person tried to spin it and say if my above position holds then it opens the gate for a morality based stance against homosexuality ending(in her logic) to past malice inflicted that was rooted in christian morality positions ...or something to that effect. Below is my response to that Idea.





Mmmm.... I'm a bit conflicted here
I'm not so quick to throw things like morality & malice on the table. Which leads me to the position of...

"what(if at all) does morality play in my position/model?"

I have no immediate answer to that question actually.
(I'll think about it)


What I can definitely say is that choice(difference) outside of a given culture/politic isn't inherently bad. The central question for me is...
"How do you deal with difference?"

Now that question I can answer. To that I ask...
Does the culture/political difference go against your personal culture/politic?
(Then you don't personally engage in that activity and leave others to themselves)

Does the culture/political difference go against your family culture/politic?
(Then your family shouldn't engage in that activity and leave other families to themselves)

Does the culture/political difference go against your local culture/politic?
(Then your local jurisdiction shouldn't engage in that activity (possibly making it illegal) and leave other local jurisdictions to themselves)

I.E. My ultimate solution to cultural/political difference and the "choices" that spiral out of them is political autonomy.

​

CONCLUSION: I have no problem with any individual homosexual person. My problem is specifically the politics(not "morality") in relation to homosexuals.

By politics I'm referring to...
The "cultural imperialism" of the political apparatus(HRC, Glad, and the affiliated non profit, civil, & corporate entities) If homosexuals have group political problems then they should (like any other group) have the political autonomy to care for themselves.
But when the act of caring for themselves entails altering the (Individual, family, local) culture & politic of another none hostile group ...I have a problem.

(Maybe that's the closest I'll get to a moral dilemma)

If you don't like a particular culture & politic then make your own elsewhere. Only when an outside group hinders the making of your own political jurisdictions do you engage them in hostilities(SEE: U.S. civil rights movement -- voting rights act) African peoples at large and African Americans in particular are not attacking gay spots nor made local laws against homosexuals. (most of the modern push back has been in response to international agencies attempting to force different groups to hold specific policies in relation to homosexuals)

Most folks (African Americans in particular) who don't like you (for what ever reason) will simply remove you from their social circle then keep it moving. No more no less.

The idea of being born with a sexual orientation is simply a political talking point.
PART 4 OF 4​

Hello again,
I've already addressed these issues in my previous posts

CHARGE: 1 OF 3

"This is simply not true on a large scale, that Africans or AA's—or even caucasian people, do not make local laws against homosexuals:"

ANSWERED THIS ALREADY: "(most of the modern push back has been in response to international agencies attempting to force different groups to hold specific policies in relation to homosexuals)"

• Show me pre colonial prohibitions & attacks on homosexuals in Africa
• Show me a string of laws African American municipalities have created against homosexuals & attacks on their locations
• Of course Caucasians have made laws, where do you think all this funk comes from? My concern is with the global African population, not caucs

CHARGE: 2 OF 3

'This is simply an unrealistic solution that caucasian people have pushed on diaspora-blacks for centuries to justify the disenfranchisement of blacks—"Oh, you're not happy with how you're treated here? Go back to Africa then, otherwise shut the hell up and suck it up!" '

ANSWERED THIS ALREADY: "Only when an outside group hinders the making of your own political jurisdictions do you engage them in hostilities (SEE: U.S. civil rights movement -- voting rights act) "



CHARGE: 3 OF 3

But what does "making your own" mean, especially when these queer people by default coexist with heteronormative folks?

This is easy...

Generic examples:

• Have enough homosexuals to make a self help organization ....then buy/rent a building, collect funds, and hold meetings (SEE: any given local black church ...even impoverished folks in government housing can keep a church funded)

• Have enough homosexuals to form a local enclave ...then buy homes in the same area and create a small neighborhood (SEE: nudist colonies in Florida or your local china town)

• Have enough homosexuals to form a small unincorporated town ...then buy up homes & property in the county to move into (SEE: Oyotunji African Village in south carolina)

• Have enough homosexuals to run an incorporated city ...then vote in homosexuals & supporters for mayor and city services (SEE: any African American ran city in the U.S.)

• Have enough homosexuals to run a county ...then vote in homosexuals & supporters for county offices (SEE: Amish & Mennonite Communities in the U.S.)

• Have enough homosexuals to run a state ...then vote in homosexuals & supporters for governor and state offices (SEE: Mormons in Utah)

 

[TL15]

Talking about whether or not people are born with a sexual orientation on YouTube is one hell of a hobby

 

[Yade]

Tl: Dr but I remember seeing something gay on tv and I knew that shyt wasn’t right


If you like man butt OP it’s fine no need to break it down

 

[TELL ME YA CHEESIN FAM?]

You gay as fukk
Gtfoh

 

[Daio]

So you are saying that everyone and anyone can be gay?

 

[GMoney]

LGBTXYZs don't even say this anymore though, that was a position that many mainline gays used as a legal/political strategy. That Gay Gene nonsense was popular in the nineties.

 

[Ya' Cousin Cleon]

this is why people been tellin others to log out and go tf outside

Talking about whether or not people are born with a sexual orientation on YouTube is one hell of a hobby

 

[Killer Instinct]

A girl used to pull me beside the building and kiss me at daycare before we came in from recess until we got caught by the cameras. I didnt know what it was, but I knew I liked her lips on mine, the way her hair smelt, and the way she felt. A boy tried to hold my hand in Kindergarten. I wasnt able to go to recess for a week because I caught him with a right hook. From the sandbox, I was intrigued by females. I was attracted to them before I even knew what attraction was. I'm not denying sexual behavior can be influenced. I absolutely believe kids are still born hetero or homosexual.

 

[The Prince of All Saiyans]

So JJG back huh

 

[Rozay Oro]

Who gives a fukk. I'm over here, they over there. As long as they don't start raping or groping. I'm just gonna try to live a good life with my family and friends.

Let's focus on the betterment of our community, pockets and health. Fufu debates is a waste of time.

 

[Antwon Mitchell]

I didn't even read all that shyt..dudes writing books and shyt just to express a point .

 

[SnowflakesByTheOZ]

Bro summarize that shyt. Nobody is reading your dissertation​

 

[Spiritual Stratocaster]

Way too many words:mjzooted:

 

[Super Ramon]

I ain’t reading all that breh

 

[Booker T Garvey]

Not about to read all that

but that argument doesn't even hold up to even the most basic arguments of human biology and reproduction