Twitter Nonsense: No Gay People?

I had an interesting conversation on Twitter last night. I wanted to share because the other person made one very horrific tweet, and because I thought I handled the conversation very well, for once. Here’s the link to the whole thread.

For those who don’t wish to read the whole thread, here’s what I tweeted that sparked the discussion:

Just for some explanation, because I was once Christian, I thought homosexuality was wrong, and I actually continued to think it might be for a while after I stopped believing the religion. I remember thinking that being gay was a choice, so when I learned that it really is biological more than anything, it helped me to accept that homosexuality is not wrong. Later, I realized there is no good reason to think homosexuality is wrong; whether it is a choice or not, why is that expression of love, that way of seeking pleasure, that way of trying not to feel alone, wrong? Of course, I also never really thought the orientation was wrong, only the acting on it, so I thought I would understand exactly where this person was coming from. I was wrong.

First, she (profile looks like a woman, so assuming female, but could be wrong) angrily asserts that I’m attacking a strawman in the original tweet, but I proved I was not by pointing to “pray away the gay” camps. She then complained that people wrongfully think that claiming homosexual sex is wrong is like racism:

This is where I’m proud of myself, because I started asking questions to ensure I knew exactly what this person believes on the issue. The thread also might become a bit difficult to follow, as it started branching, with me pointing to bonobos, one of our closest evolutionary cousins, to show that sex of all kinds is perfectly natural.

Soon enough, she revealed herself to be bigoted:

I’d never heard someone flat out deny that people are gay before. She did have the small amount of decency required to admit people can identify as gay, but she denies that they actually are, apparently because it is “not inborn”. She thinks human “bodies, biology, psychologically were designed for” loving, consensual sex “within a heterosexual marriage covenant”. I was quick to point out that I know people whose psychology is helped by being actively polyamorous.

While it took me some time to think of how to respond because it was such an ignorant statement and I was stunned (I responded to some other branches of the thread meantime), I think I did well:

There has been no further response at this time.

I’m normally a lot more articulate when I have more than 140 characters to work with, and I think that shows in most conversations that happen on Twitter. It’s the main reason, other than lack of time, that I don’t start arguments on Twitter, though I will pretty much always respond if someone starts one with me. This time I did well, and I’m glad. I’m not a member of the LGBT community*, but I’m an ally, and I will go to bat against ignorance when I see it.

*I might be a man in a woman’s body who is attracted to men, which would make me trans and gay, but I don’t identify as either of those labels right now. I do think I would be full-blown, seeking or having already had surgery, trans if I’d been raised in a more open environment, though. (I’m more sure that I would still be attracted to men. Would a person who denies trans identities see a trans man having sex with a “born” man as gay? I think this would confuse the bigots.) See also: http://www.robot-hugs.com/identity-shift/


8 thoughts on “Twitter Nonsense: No Gay People?

  1. Awesome.

    Link 1: “in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters.” — Not genetic, but a great environmental reason. To which I’d respond “duh.”

    Link 2: Wow, a sample size of FOURTY? This isn’t compelling evidence. Also, looking at siblings and drawing the conclusion that something is genetic ignores the reality that attraction is probably more environmental [or as Dr. Julie Harren, Ph.D., LMFT argues:

    “Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Hormonal Environment = Temperament
    Parents + Peers + Experiences = Environment
    Temperament + Environment = Attraction” ]

    Link 3: “the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports” . Continuing to make my point.

    Link 4: Our first indicator that Time is ummm…. not that reliable… is that it uses the long-demolished myth that 10% of the population is homosexual. And cites an article from 1993 to make the point. Good lawd. NPR says 3.8% http://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/137057974/-institute-of-medicine-finds-lgbt-health-research-gaps-in-us

    WA Post says: “More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.”

    Moving on to the rest of the article, your link has a guy that claims it’s not DNA or genetics. Is this supposed to be helping you? They are so desperate to prove that it’s biological, but I’m confused as to why. I’ll ask you that later on.

    Link 5: “Still, only 20 percent of identical twins are both gay, said Rice. Furthermore, linkage studies looking for a genetic underpinning to sexual orientation have not turned up any “major” homosexual genes, Rice noted.”. Hm, that’s interesting.

    Link 6: Should have posted your thinkprogress and Huffpo articles closer to the top and when reading your more scientific articles, should have realized that your own sources are disagreeing with your own sources and claims. Also, these are old.

    Link 7: Again, an article from 1993 that is so old that all the other ones are disagreeing with it.

    Link 8: I don’t disagree, since our temperment + environment are being formed in the womb. Doesn’t really prove your point though.

    So in conclusion, why the assumption that homosexuality is inborn and that attraction is not based on many factors and is fluid AND that attraction COULD be unhealthy?

  2. You’re getting pissy that I’m answering back? I thought your problem was that I’d stopped responding in the first place? If you prefer to write without anyone responding and holding you accountable, I’ll leave. 🙂

    1. I’m getting pissy that you are not engaging in honest discussion. You can still show that you are capable of that, but my experience with previous Christians who argue like you do does not leave me with much hope.

  3. I never said it did. In this comment, you misrepresent what I’ve said in other threads, which is another dishonest maneuver in discussion. Previously, you have demonstrated a refusal to actually listen to what I’m saying (evidenced by having to repeat myself multiple times) as well as a refusal to look at my sources while accusing me of that behavior when I’ve obviously changed my whole worldview. Those are also traits indicative of an unwillingness to have an honest discussion. Instead, they show that you are only here to preach your own worldview… which is one that I once embraced and used to preach myself. It’s annoying when I’m already in poor condition (tired, overworked) because I’ve heard it all before, but I’m still willing to engage in honest discussion and look at the evidence once more. I’ve demonstrated this repeatedly.

    Surely you agree that I can’t be expected to respect you as a rational being when you aren’t offering me the same courtesy I’m offering you. If I really wanted to shut down your point of view and keep it from appearing in comments on my blog, I could delete your comments and block you from commenting again. I have not done so, and I will not delete your comments here or block you unless you become more obnoxious. Also, you are the one who blocked me on Twitter, not the other way around. You’re the one who wanted to shut out the opposing viewpoint. I enjoy challenging my viewpoint when possible, or I would not allow people like you to comment and continue commenting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s