Homosexuality a RACE? EXCUSE ME?!?!

from JoeUser Forums

That's it! I need a radio talk show. These bozos just aren't doing their job.

A perfect example was brought forth yesterday on Michael Medved's talk show. He was talking about the issue of whether or not discrimination against homosexuality should be a crime, actually an interesting debate. A caller called in and made a major misstatement that Medved should have been all over. He referred to discrimination that occurs against the "Race" of homosexuals. I was laughing so hard at that comment I thought I'd have to pull over to the side of the road for a second. But Medved didn't address the comment at all.

You see, for all the arguments you can advance regarding whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic (I believe it is a choice...but further believe that we, as a nation, were founded on the principle of the rights of individuals to make choices....even those we consider to be stupid, as long as those choices are made by consenting adults...but I digress), one thing that it cannot EVER be considered, is a race.

You see, the major defining feature of a "race" is the ability to make progeny organically. By its very definition, homosexuals are unable to produce offspring from their relationship (you'd think, if genetic, that somehow evolution would have "found a way"...but I digress). Sure they can adopt, and this is not a diatribe against homosexual adoption. But they cannot produce any offspring. That's not bigotry, folks, that's biology talking.

What concerned me the most about this statement being left unchallenged is its implications. If we begin to view homosexuals as a race, then we will begin to view attitudes against homosexual behaviour to be racism. And that, I believe, was the full intent of the caller, and precisely why he should have been corrected as soon as the comment left his mouth.

You see, while I defend fully the rights of homosexuals to live their lives as they see fit, despite my own STRONGLY held views against such behaviour, I equally defend the rights of myself and others to speak out about what we feel to be morally irresponsible and sinful behaviour. And not only does equating homosexuality with race potentially impact MY rights, but it also diminishes the blood of the thousands of abolitionists and civil rights leaders that was shed on the soil of our country over many, many years.

And THAT, my friends, is a crime against humanity.

7,172 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I need a radio talk show. These bozos just aren't doing their job.

You'd be the new King of all Media, broadcasting and blogging from little Lefors. You'd put it on the map.

What concerned me the most about this statement being left unchallenged is its implications. If we begin to view homosexuals as a race, then we will begin to view attitudes against homosexual behaviour to be racism. And that, I believe, was the full intent of the caller, and precisely why he should have been corrected as soon as the comment left his mouth.

This caller belongs to the subset of humanity which I call "stupid".

And not only does equating homosexuality with race potentially impact MY rights

I honestly don't think we are in any danger of that. It's one thing to claim that homosexuality is a biological predisposition, but show me the biological evidence that homosexuals are somehow a unique and different species from the hetero. Other than an excellent sense of fashion and culinary taste...

(For the record, I am in your camp regarding the "origins" of homosexuality. We all have choices, and we cannot absolve ourselves of those choices by saying we were "born that way".)
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Could it be perhaps that the caller misspoke?  Or was he really just a parrot of the mantra that is fed into the sheep of his cause?  You got to wonder.

But I agree with your summation.  Trying to make every fight for justice a racial one, as each has its own merits and problems.  But equating all to race is to denigrate a very significant fight that has been going on for years and we are gradually winning.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well obviously the radio personality didn't take the caller to task because it wouldn't have been politically correct. ~rolls eyes~

I have seen countless media types avoid the subject all together for fear of reprisal. Reprisal by people who aren't even gay. When you have tv shows about it that are glamorized and put on prime time, it should come as no shock to see the rest of the media slowly follow.

Anyway, maybe you should think about making video tapes and airing them on your local cable access channel. Most people don't know that the station can't refuse your tape, or refuse to play it, as long as it falls under FCC rules and regs....however if they don't like it they could play it at 3am....hehe.

I worked for a cable access channel in college...we had to put everything on the air that someone brought in...our schedule though.

Something to think about.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know freedom only goes one way, and if a minority wants to be considered a different "race", only a bigoted white guy would argue against it. After all, "race" isn't a scientific classification, only a social one... right? ;~D
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

After all, "race" isn't a scientific classification, only a social one... right? ;~D

Unfortunate but true!

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
You see, the major defining feature of a "race" is the ability to make progeny organically. By its very definition, homosexuals are unable to produce offspring from their relationship (you'd think, if genetic, that somehow evolution would have "found a way"...but I digress). Sure they can adopt, and this is not a diatribe against homosexual adoption. But they cannot produce any offspring. That's not bigotry, folks, that's biology talking.


While the rest of what you're saying I broadly agree with, this is just wrong. It's not exactly difficult for a homosexual man or woman to have children, even without IVF. It's been happening for millenia. Enough stimulation and a man can do it; women don't even need that. So it's entirely possible there's a genetic cause, because for a very long time people have been expected to have children, regardless of their sexual persuasion. So if there is a gay gene, it's probably fairly widely spread.

They're still not a race, but it's not because they can't produce offspring. It might be more because they don't want to.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
If it's a race, then it's a very strange race that people can join or leave.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
So it's entirely possible there's a genetic cause, because for a very long time people have been expected to have children, regardless of their sexual persuasion. So if there is a gay gene, it's probably fairly widely spread.
...it's not because they can't produce offspring. It might be more because they don't want to.


If there was a "gay gene", which there isn't BTW, it would be a recessive gene that would have been evolved out in only a few generations. Because the strict homosexual would not be procreating. End of genetics.

And before you postulate a "bi gene"... now you're just splitting hairs.

If it's a race, then it's a very strange race that people can join or leave.

Exactly. I go back to what I said before: We all have choices, and we cannot absolve ourselves of those choices by saying we were "born that way".
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

While the rest of what you're saying I broadly agree with, this is just wrong. It's not exactly difficult for a homosexual man or woman to have children, even without IVF. It's been happening for millenia. Enough stimulation and a man can do it; women don't even need that

NO, cacto...a homosexual man and woman CANNOT procreate within the context of their relationship....PERIOD. A man and a man can't make a baby, nor can a woman and a woman. They HAVE to make babies using an outside partner, even in the case of IVF (although it's possible that could change, if cloning ever becomes a viable possibility). There is no way offspring can come out of their relationship no matter how stimulated they are.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
While the rest of what you're saying I broadly agree with, this is just wrong. It's not exactly difficult for a homosexual man or woman to have children, even without IVF. It's been happening for millenia. Enough stimulation and a man can do it; women don't even need that. So it's entirely possible there's a genetic cause, because for a very long time people have been expected to have children, regardless of their sexual persuasion. So if there is a gay gene, it's probably fairly widely spread.


Yikes... Just in.... All those stupid physiology and biology classes I took fell on deaf ears. Grandma always said I was growing potato's in dem dar ears, she was right! I hate it, she's been gone for a long time, and she's still teaching me.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Descrimination against homosexuality, yes, happens all the time, as we're all aware. But homosexuality as a race, no. Your summation is correct Gid.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
They HAVE to make babies using an outside partner


This is the crutch of my point. A gay man can have sex with a straight woman and a gay woman can have sex with a straight man, or with a gay man. They just won't enjoy it as much, if at all. It'll be lustless. Of course a gay couple they need an outside partner, but if history suggests anything it's that homosexuality has been repressed in favour of maintaining societal norms. So up til the 60s there haven't been many publically gay people. And most of the publically gay still had wives and children, which means if there is a gene they passed it on.

which there isn't BTW, it would be a recessive gene that would have been evolved out in only a few generations. Because the strict homosexual would not be procreating


Why do you assume they wouldn't procreate? Haven't you ever felt socially obliged to do something which doesn't exactly thrill you? Historically society has exerted a great deal more pressure on men and women to marry and have children. Then there's the sodomy laws which made it illegal to be gay publically. Of course anyone wishing to avoid years of hard labour or execution would maintain the pretence, even if it involved a lustless marriage.

Oh, and when did they establish that there isn't a gene at all? I haven't really kept up to date with genome projects. But still, even if there's no longer a scientific basis, and therefore I'm wrong, there's nothing about history to suggest it's not possible.

But if I'm wrong I hope my ignorance excuses my stupidity.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, since "race" has nothing to do with reproduction, that whole part of the discussion is pretty much meaningless. "Species" would be the part of the Organization of Living Things that separates the "reproduceable" from the "non reproduceable". Of course, any two species can go through the motions.. ;~D
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Homosexuals are not a race but they are a segment of society just like handicapped people. Yes you are borne with it. If a self-proclaimed heterosexual can envision making a choice to fall in love with another man then he is bi-sexual or gay and just in denial. They are not heterosexual. Sure there are homosexuals out there that say they’ve converted and are now married to a woman even with a families. But they’re still thinking about the pool boy when they have sex with their wife. The majority eventually ends up in a relationship with another man or they just get to old to care about sex and are just growing old with a dear friend. They remain gay until the day they die.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have strong feelings about homosexuality: Let them do as they like but don't equate a homosexual with "natural life". What they do is not natural and never will be.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok, here's my two sense. (Naturally.) I agree with Gideon that homosexuality is not a "race" mostly because I think what we call "race" is mostly culturally constructed.

As to the debate over genetic vs. choice. I know everyone's going to start screaming at me for a link I don't have but I believe the newest research gives some suggestion that homosexuality is genetic. Irregardless, my problem with the "choice" argument is I challenge any open-minded, scientifically curious heterosexual man to make a concerted effort to feel sexual attraction for another man, to the point of lust and not artistic appreciation ala classical sculpture. Go on, try it. See? Why would anyone choose to be a public outcast, to limit their human drive to procreate, to open themselves up to ridicule and condemnation?

Taken for all in all, I am very impressed with most of the responses here. Obviously several are from the more conservative faction but everyone seems willing to acknowledge the American ideal of personal freedom and protection for individual rights. Cheers!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Homosexuals are not a race but they are a segment of society just like handicapped people.


Great, if homosexuals get classified a "handicap" how many laws will be passed to force the rest of us to alter how we do things to accomidate this "handicap". ;~D

My guess is, the only gay people who wouldn't be offended by your characterization would be those who see political advantages to being called "handicapped".
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

See? Why would anyone choose to be a public outcast, to limit their human drive to procreate, to open themselves up to ridicule and condemnation?

That is a very weak argument. Pedophiles can (and DO) use the same argument. Zoophiles do as well. Now, let me be ABUNDANTLY clear that I am not equating homosexuality with bestiality or pedophilia. The former involves consenting adults and, as long as it is exercised in privacy, is absolutely none of my business personally. What I am saying, though, is this tired metaphor is the poorest excuse for homosexuality being genetically based, as people can and DO choose to be public outcasts, limit their human drive to procreate, and open themselves up to ridicule and condemnation on a regular basis.

I still FIRMLY believe homosexuality to be a choice. And you're not going to sway me from that opinion. I also firmly believe it to be morally reprehensible, and won't be swayed from that opinion either. But I am equally firm in my insistence that we should respect choices, however misguided, as long as those choices involve consenting adults.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

I know everyone's going to start screaming at me for a link I don't have but I believe the newest research gives some suggestion that homosexuality is genetic

No, actually that is one of the major theories right now, with strong support.  No link necessary.  But others do not agree with that theory, which is fine.  There is nothing wrong with accepting it in the absense of any deffinitive facts.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
A life of experience along with many encounters with gays and a few of my wife's gay colleagues tell me I am suppose to be more accepting of homosexuality. Sorry, but that just isn't going to happen. Accepting of the behavior....yes, but with hard limits that fall short of a race or marital acknowledgement amoung other limits. The best I can offer is legal partnership considerations.

Homosexually exists as a result of abnormal cell development during the birth process. Much the same as other abnormal cells develop causing various birth abnormalities. In light of the growing acceptance of aberrant behaviors across the board, more has to be done to bring the surge of questionable behaviors under control.

What's really troubling is society is faced with a shadow burden of all those that choose alternate lifestyles and cell abnormalities have nothing to do with their choice either. They're cause is hitching a ride on the concession of society's growing concern. Just look at the dramatic increase in women exploring their sexuality and determining it's easier to play lesbian verses the complexities of a heterosexual lifestyle. Further exampled by the media's increase in presenting the gay lifestyle in a variety of mediums even when the masses are not interested. We're being spoon fed a wide range of subculture behaviors by the media in general. I will use my resources to support my beliefs, not what the media thinks is acceptable!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gid.. I agree with you that homosexuality is not a race.

You know I am gay.

I dont agree with you though that it is a choice. I have NEVER been attracted to a woman sexually EVER. My earliest fantasies and im talking about dreamin at the age of 5 are of men. The idea of having sex with a woman repulses me, just as I am sure having sex with a man repulses you.

I am a man. I dont dress up in womans clothes, I dont go prancing around flaunting my sexuality. I am a man in all senses of the word other than I fall in love with other men and not women. I dont choose to do that, it is intrinsically what I am inside.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let them do as they like but don't equate a homosexual with "natural life". What they do is not natural and never will be.


Scientists have found many examples of homosexual actions outside homo sapiens sapiens. It's clearly natural. It's "unnatural" to us due to culture.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes even I must laugh at this Homesexuals are a race comment.

And one Question if being Homosexual is a choice as some people believe then when did you make your choice? when did you sit down one day decide you was going to be str8? (have asked this question many times but as of yet no one has given a answer)

And one last thing why is it some people can believe in a supreme being (god) but can't believe gay people are born gay.

BTW I am gay.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pheonix, nottie...

I sincerely doubt either of you sat down one day and said, "wow, wouldn't it be cool to fall in love with other guys" and chose to go with it.

I didn't sit down and say, "wow, wouldn't it be cool to not see purple" or "green is such an ugly color in traffic lights, I think it should be the same color as manilla folders". I know that I am colorblind and left handed because of a gene. It isn't a choice, but I am still expected to live in a "normal" color seeing, right handed world. If I have trouble adapting it is MY problem, not society's.

I don't know if an attraction to the same sex is because of a gene or not. I also don't see where that matters. If you want to choose a homosexual lifestyle, that is up to you, however, homosexuals are no more entitled to demand society adapt to them as I am entitled to demand society adapt to me.

Imagine what our societies would be like if us colorblind folks demanded legislation banning use of color, just because we want to be treated as "normal". I know my colorblindness isn't "normal", I know that there are things I'll never be able to do because I am colorblind. Societies are based on standardization. When standards are set, some people are "left out". Do we do away with society, just to make sure no one is made to feel "abnormal"?

We did not choose the parts of who we are that seperate us from the "norm", but whether we adapt to that "norm" or try to demand the rest of society adapt to us IS our choice.

Pheonixboi, I do respect you. I am going through a lot of trials because of my condition, but mine doesn't hold a candle to what you are going through. In your pain, and (usually) private anguish, you still keep a great attitude towards life. So I hope you accept what I've said in the spirit of understanding it was meant.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey there Para..

Imagine what our societies would be like if us colorblind folks demanded legislation banning use of color, just because we want to be treated as "normal".


The difference there is that you are not persecuted because your colourblind, you havent been beaten, tortured, spat on, murdered, harrased, abused, rejected by your family, your church, your friends.. all because you have colourblindness. Your colourblindness is respected as a difference in the "norm" of society in this age, maybe in the ancient past it wasnt and considered as a sin against humanity, but times change and so should the society, for example we no longer think we are the centre of the universe or that our planet is flat (well some still do).

Being gay is a part of who I am. I have NEVER gone out there and asked anyone to change anything because of my sexuality, I am just me and I just live life as anyone else does. I dont wear a banner on my head saying Im gay just like you dont wear a banner on ure head tellin people your colourblind. The quicker this society accepts the differences that make up our vast humanity the better we will learn to live with each other and be at peace.

Pheonixboi, I do respect you. I am going through a lot of trials because of my condition, but mine doesn't hold a candle to what you are going through. In your pain, and (usually) private anguish, you still keep a great attitude towards life. So I hope you accept what I've said in the spirit of understanding it was meant.


Sure I do! Just like Gids other post about debate, we might not agree but we can talk about it! LW is one of my closest mates, and you know as well as me what her views are on certain things yet we are really close. We all need to be like this.