You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
EXCELLENT! It should be shown in all middle and high schools, but of course, the homophobes would have a cow, especially since it proves them wrong! (as usual).
posted by Anonymous, at
4/19/2008 10:37 AM
I know I didn't choose to be gay. I have known about my feelings for men since I was 9 or 10, at least. Of course I do choose whether to have sex and with whom to have sex. I also know that if I could become straight I would not want to change. I like being gay. I also know that religion and religious beliefs are choices. Hmmm. That means that people who say the Bible condemns same sex behavior and who say that homosexuality is a choice have made a choice to believe those things.
posted by Patrick, at
4/19/2008 11:49 AM
I've known since I was 7 that I was naturally oriented towards males and unlike ex-gay ministries' mantra, I did not come from an over-domineering mother or absent father. Ask a straight person when they realized they were straight or when did they get to chose their eye color, then maybe they'd realize that sexual orientation is definitely not a choice. Sexual orientation is a matter of natural selection. Ask a straight person why more than 500 species of life on this planet also exhibit same-sex attraction. If it were a choice, I most definitely would not want to be straight either, no matter the hurdles we've faced and continue to face in life. I'm happy and content with who I am and have no desire to be otherwise.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/20/2008 8:25 AM
Although this is a great cartoon, it doesn't provide the true picture of the research. And it leaves women out of the equation - totally (a whole half of the population) Just sort of skipped over without explanation. The one thing that is very clear - people (men or women) are attracted to who they are attracted to - it's not really something you choose.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/20/2008 11:21 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/20/2008 6:30 PM
Wayne,
You might want to check this out, and have it updated for accuracy - especially the "hostility towards ex-homosexuals and ex-homosexual groups" section. Looks like these guys are just making a bunch of bullshit up:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Ex-homosexuals
Funny how in their top 10 subjects at conservapedia, 7 of them are all homosex-related. Goes to show which party attracts the biggest number of (closeted) queens!:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics
Oh, how I feel sorry for all the beard wives and children of "conservatives" out there LOL!
posted by S., at
4/20/2008 10:49 PM
It is futile to attempt to update conservapedia for accuracy, because if whatever you add doesn't jive with their nutball agendas, it will just get reverted, and if you keep trying they will block you. There have already been cases where noted scientists have attempted to correct information related to their fields of expertise, and they've been blocked.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/21/2008 12:59 AM
Ha ha! Okay I just watched the whole thing. Cute.
But aside from simplifying the science, I think they left out an important ethical point - even if it were a choice, we live in a free country (supposedly).
And as Patrick pointed out, your religion is most definitely a choice, yet religious expression is one of our most basic protected rights.
If scientists ever did pin down the biological causes of homosexuality, it's not like the right wing would suddenly accept us. They would just shift their tactics - they would focus on labeling it a birth defect. They would draw parallels between homosexuals and murderers with brain disorders. They would start saying moronic things like "well genes contribute to all kinds of diseases and we medically treat those, so why not homosexuality?"
posted by Anonymous, at
4/21/2008 1:12 AM
Eshto,
I too fear the day homosexuality is called a genetic disorder.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/21/2008 11:24 AM
Oh, there's no reason to fear, since I'm pretty sure it's already being called that by plenty of homophobic yahoos. I've heard it sporadically throughout my life.
And they already claim it's an addiction or a mental disorder, so it wouldn't be too much of a change.
All I'm saying is that homophobes would twist it into just another idiotic reason to hate gays, rather than accept it as some kind of "proof" that it's okay to be gay, as some advocates of LGBT rights seem to believe they would for some reason.
I think when queers and allies try to use biology as proof that being gay is natural, they overestimate the intelligence, and underestimate the commitment to bigotry, of the homophobes they're addressing.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/21/2008 7:22 PM
I'm gay and this has something that's always confused me:
Why do gay men on average have both female-like charateristics like not being able to throw well (I know not all gays are like this, but obviously enough are to develop the stereotype) and being poorer drivers, but also have a lot of male urges like wanting sex and power?
Eh all those traits could be considered negative gender stereotypes, I realize- but please just hear me out.
The feminizing fetus thing doesn't quite make sense, or gay men would have sexual urges like females and we don't, we have sexual patterns and a strong, oomphy-desire for sex like straight men. Does it feminize it enough just to make us more passive while still having some 'straight male abilities & faults' so to speak? That doesn't make that much sense either.
So why is homosexually only acceptable in straight people if it's one way or the other? Either we're naturally weak and deserve to get beat up for our genes, or we're predators trying to have our own way. We can't win.
Also, I'm my mom's first born son and I'm still gay. Epic fail?
posted by Anonymous, at
4/22/2008 12:57 PM
Actually, that whole thing about birth order seems to assume that there is something different or pathological about being gey-- that somehow, it is a feminization of a man. I find the assumption both subtle and repugnant.
A better explanation about birth order might have a lot more to do about family structure and availability of the both fahter and mother during the formative years.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/22/2008 1:35 PM
Ben said "A better explanation about birth order might have a lot more to do about family structure and availability of the both fahter and mother during the formative years.".
Ben the research took this into account. It was found that the more older brothers you had the more likely you are to be gay whether or not you were raised with those older brothers. For example, a boy is born with several older brothers and adopted into a family where he has no older brothers. In this situation the child was also more likely to be gay despite the lack of an environment with the family structure and availability problems you mentioned.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
4/22/2008 5:55 PM
No ignorant right wing spin doctors allowed on this site. WayneBesen.com is for intelligent people only. Anonymous, you don't make the cut - so please vanish to WorldNutDaily ASAP.
I also have a bit of an issue with this "birth order" hypothesis. I was the FIRST born(at least to the best of my knowledge)and I'm queerer than the proverbial 3 dollar bill. Albeit I'm a masculine gender gay dude, I'm still GAY!! I personally feel that mommy's uterus and hormones don't really have ALL that much say in gay or straight. IF it is hormones that are "causing" one to be gay or straight than I personally think it's coming from WITHIN the genetic code as opposed to coming from WITHOUT(mommy's hormone contribution). Call me crazy but ya know what? I think that just like there's a 50/50 shot your born male or female sex, there's also a 50/50 shot your born straight or gay!! This 10% of the population BS trip? Sorry guys, I don't buy it! There's a WHOLE lot more of us out there than meets the ol' preverbial eye! =)). Keep up with the fantastic articles wayne. Peace. MH.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/25/2008 11:59 AM
