5 ms·
Characterizing sexual orientation as a preference (not to mention a casual preference that can be changed when convenient) ignores the large volume of evidence
by mef 13y ago
Characterizing sexual orientation as a preference (not to mention a casual preference that can be changed when convenient) ignores the large volume of evidence to the contrary. You may not realize this, but it comes off as pretty vile. Or you might just be trolling.
- anon1385 13y agoI doubt he is trolling. His past comments indicate he has pretty extreme political views.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoHow is sexual orientation anything other than a preference? Note that whether or not a preference is "casual" is not relevant to either my post or the post I responded to. You can demonize me all you want, but it's not a substitute for carefully thinking through your views. I imagine it's more fun though, and less risky - after all, careful thought can result in discovering you are wrong about something.
- hkphooey 13y agoThere's an elephant in the room which people don't like discussing: If sexual orientation is not a preference, is it genetic and if so, what happens if scientists can screen for it?
- yummyfajitas 13y agoI don't understand - how are "it is genetic" and "it is a preference" contradictory? The two statements seem orthogonal to one another. Suppose appetite for risk is genetic - does that mean we should stop saying "risk preferences" and (as a matter of civil rights) must stop legally favoring certain choices regarding risk?