As a black man I am extremely offended when individuals defending homosexuality constantly use racial comparisons to bolster their arguments. I appreciate that their may be some sort of biological proclivity toward homosexuality in some individuals, however, that does not make it any less of a choice. I cannot choose to be white no matter how hard I try, homosexuals on the other hand can choose to be different. Just because a choice is difficult doesn't make it any less a choice, and therefore it is, by definition, a lifestyle decision.

A homosexual can not choose to not be a homosexual. All he or she can do is choose to not have sex with people of the same gender. This does not, however, change what he or she is.

Interesting, but if someone's brain is wired to predispose them to sociopathology, does that make them a sociopath or do they become one when they act on their compulsions. Furthermore, if there was a test to determine whether a child is predisposed to sociopathology, would parents be wrong to seek prenatal treatment to avoid this "disorder"?

Additionally, would sociopaths (who havent acted out) be correct in protesting this treatment as some sort perversion of the natural order?

Regardless of society's attempts to redefine homosexuality as a genetic trait people have no control over, it is an inaccurate description of a person until their choice is "consummated". The same way a murderer is not a murderer until they've killed, no matter what their genetic predisposition is.

Conversely, a black man does not act on his blackness, it just is.

As a black woman I am tired of black people being so offended by comparisons between the black and gay communities.

First of all. Who cares if we can't choose to be white? If we could would it suddenly be okay to discriminate against us then?

How is discrimination based upon skin color and ethnic features so different from discrimination based upon our reproductive plumbing and what we want to do with it?

Don't you object to the laws that once banned us from marrying/mating outside of our race? We can't help what race we are born, and we can't help what race the person we desire is born either. So, why would you not also object to laws that ban us from marrying within our own sex (other than your personal disgust and biases against gay people) if we can't help which sex we are born and we can't help which sex the persons we desire are born?

There were and still are an awful lot of people in the world who think we are gross or inferior or flawed just because we are black. But we're not black just to offend them; their objection to our very existence are irrelevant. Viewing it this way might inspire your empathy with gay people, instead of your revulsion at being compared. Of course you would have to let go of being offended that gay people exist to have any empathy with them.

It's worth a try.

Comparing same-sex attraction to sociopathy or murder is like suggesting that skin color predisposes one to getting on welfare and buying cadillacs. And if they don't, does that mean they're not really black?

What is a black man? Is it merely a man with dark skin? In that case, I know lots of South Asians who are black. And I know a lot of light-skinned men who would be offended if you failed to recognize their negritude.

You are just a bigot parading as a civil rights worker.

Black people in the American context are people of sub-Saharan African descent, Sam. You know that, I know that, we all know that. You can make your point just fine without hand-waving.

Certainly most African-Americans are of sub-Saharan African descent. You know that, I know that, most people know that.

That's not the point. I know that, but clearly not everyone knows that. There was a time when blackness was equated with moral turpitude in the same way that some insist on equating same-sex attraction with and comparing it to moral turpitude and disease. That is sinister. Like handedness, skin color and sexuality are trivial variations within our species.

Personally, I'm attracted to right-handed people, but only if they pretend to be left handed.

The personal attacks are unnecessary. I could see if I pulled an Ahmadinejad and said gay people dont have a right to exist. They do, they also should have equal rights under the law, HOWEVER, that still does not make to way they choose to live their life not a choice. I dont hate gay people at all, but I am definitely free to disagree with a lifestyle choice and not be a bigot. It would be as if a white person saying they don't like the color brown, so all of a sudden they hate black people. No, they just don't like the color brown, that doesn't make them a bigot so lets just calm down.

Also I sorry to offend folks with my comparison, I didn't intend to. find and replace sociopathology with compulsive altruism or whatever. the point still the same. The reason I chose sociopathology as an example was because people would be loath to label someone a sociopath before they did any thing to deserve that label but I believe it is the same argument at its core. Society is more willing to label someone a homosexual because it doesn't the horrible connotations associated with it a sociopath would.

Black people have been stigmatized in the past primarily for the way they look, not the way they act. To me, if people choose to act in a certain manner thats different than most, thats their choice but I dont think that its fair to compare it to people who can't help that they are different. Of course, if scientists find the smoking gun which proves homosexuality is genetic then my argument falls apart.

Sorry you are so offended, but science, specifially our primal autonomic nervous system tells the tale regarding whom we are sexually attracted to. Not the entire tale, but a good portion of it. The ANS is at work from the first time we experience puppy "love" to when we spy that lovely 80 year old across the room at the church social.

When we experience attraction, the body reacts and we have little or no control over it, respiration rate, body temperature, the size of our pupils, increased sensory awareness, smell, salivation, blood flow to the genitals etc.

This is basic 5th grade science-- you cannot control your ANS.

Ask just about any mom or maybe dad about their gay child when the child was about 5 or 6 years of age, most will say they knew their child was "different" than the other kids.

So stay offended, but point your offended finger at nature, not at people who can't change who they are.

Your argument? What argument?

The reason why racism comes up as a term of comparison has not a single, solitary thing to do with similarities between black and gay people (and there are actually people who are BOTH -- did you know that?) but everything to do with prejudice, "scientific" and "religious," against both by a self-identified white, straight majority.

Statistics have been propounded to establish this "majority" as a "norm," and the nonsense goes on. But none of this has ANYTHING to do with whether any of the nearly countless varieties of sexual deviance (construct a false norm and you will turn most folks into deviants) are matters of personal or lifestyle choice, like choosing the color of your couch.

What all this proves to me is that NARCISSISM is, if not the American norm, at least the norm among people posting and posing on this board. We all seem to be sitting in our little home offices and cubicles, typing away and facing up to the True Great Question of the age: WHAT DOES THIS ALL HAVE TO DO WITH MEEEEEEEEEE??????????????

People, give it a rest.

"To me, if people choose to act in a certain manner thats different than most, thats their choice but I dont think that its fair to compare it to people who can't help that they are different. Of course, if scientists find the smoking gun which proves homosexuality is genetic then my argument falls apart."

First of all, it is very likely your argument is going to fall apart so prepare for that. The evidence is ever-growing that gayness is something that can't be helped.

But it doesn't even have to go there. People can't help that they are born male or female. Your own personal view is that males should act, look and behave and have sex a certain way, and that if they don't that is some moral failing on their part. (You also likely believe that females should act, look, behave and have sex a certain way, and if they don't... well that's gross too).

However people may choose or be drawn to express themselves is really none of our business unless that self expression hurts us or someone else in a tangible way (right to the pursuit of happiness and whatnot). You are certainly free to prefer certain types of behaviors over others. So go right ahead. But the issue at hand is how we might scientifically mandate gay people out of existence. You can be offended all you want that gay people choose to act that way while other groups can't help it... but that's on you. There is a much deeper moral and ethical issue at hand that affects all of us.

I feel bad for you that you are so offended by a gesture that I believe most gays offer as a point of solidarity. They are not equating being gay to being black but rather humans to humans, "look at these humans we once treated as subhuman, why are we still treating some humans as subhuman?" I think it is a valid comparison and I am sorry that you do not understand it as such.

I also do not understand your point on choice. Homosexuality is not a choice, however whether a person lives thier life without a partner in order to conform to traditional expectations or not is indeed a choice, I agree with you there. However why should we expect gays to make this choice? Two gay partners living their lives together protected by the same basic human rights we both enjoy would not be harmful to anyone would it? What is so wrong about it that we would expect a human being to subjugate thier basic human need to love & be loved to conform to societal norms? We are talking about two consenting adults here so what is the trade off for them that would make it a better choice for them to deny thier human nature to please someone like yourself?

And I guess I don't mean just you specifically, I have seen this argument before & I do not understand it but I am curious to understand better what your side of said argument is because I all am really getting from your post is "not all humans are entitled to basic human rights because I say so".

As a black gay man (half white half black) I am always offended by the black side of my culture, the group that was literally treated as sub-human for 500 years cannot empathize with another group fighting for rights. Regardless of biology and choice.

When you say you can't choose to be white, it makes me think what if science allowed you to make that choice in a few years, you could clone hair follicles of white people and have a transplant giving you different hair, nose jobs and other cosmetic surgeries, and possibly some type of melanin eliminating therapy. If this were possible would you denounce black people for turning white now that it was possible? Michael Jackson has done a pretty good job of turning himself at least not black, he has blue eyed blond haired children.

Homosexuality is found in every animal species that we have spent any amount of time checking, dogs, cats, albatrosses. sheep, penguins, bears, pigs, eagles, rhinos, wasps, monkeys etc... and yet we still act like its a choice? i don't see a bear cub being molested turning it gay or because it saw two male bears have sex it became gay, it simply always was.

Also there doesn't have to be a why. people often say if its genetic then why, what is the advantage. Well what is the advantage of blue eyes ? Its one of the beauties of sex vs asexual reproduction, we pass on such a litany of genetic material that we each are like a little biological chemistry set slightly different than each other, the feminization of the male brain (which is currently the leading scientific theory) could have advantages that go beyond what we see ( think about Wesley snipes in the movie Blade, half vampire half human) and allow for a unique combination of the subtle difference between men and women, or it could be just a common genetic trait like blue eyes or uni-brows.

The only people who call homosexuality a choice are heterosexuals. and it is almost always rooted in non scientific research and usually has strong religious undertones.

Its funny because you don't even have the best anti-homosexual argument. If you really wanted to make an impact you should continue to push for it to be a disorder not a choice, then work towards being able to identify it at some embryonic state. Obviously at first you probably wouldn't be able to cure it, but you could abort it. since the gay population is considered around 7-10% you would be aborting an extra 350,000 to 400,000 babies a year, and eliminating that many homosexuals. Eventually it wouldn't have to be so brutal as probably with you and your ilk pushing the research you could possibly reverse sexuality early in the womb, although who knows long term side effects, but hey who knows the long term side effects of Lasik. who knows in a generation or two you could almost wipe out the homosexuals until all there is are a few old queens holding on to the last disco ball in their 90's. If you really want to be anti-homosexual that is the route for you.

Although personally i think what will happen is once gay marriage becomes fully legal and gays are allowed to openly serve in the military people will spend less and less resources trying to figure it out, the same way after WWII all the race related research done in Germany was eventually phased out as people will just deem it a waste of time and resources. People don't want homosexual children because society makes it tougher, if that were not the case then people would be as indifferent to it as the hair color of their children. Oh yah, when gay marriage becomes legal the number of homosexuals in the US could increase significantly as now marriage visas would be legal and the US would be the great gay hope for oppressed homosexuals in other countries (eastern block, china, south east asia, africa etc) They would come here looking for marriages and citizenship by the millions, thus strengthening the ranks and lowering the likelihood of any medical breakthrough in reversing sexuality.

i just did a few more bits of research here are some facts. There are gay worms, are you saying they choose to be gay? So if there is a genetic basis found and its not a choice, does that mean you will either accept homosexuality as part of humanity and life, or will you say its a defect that must be cured. then the question arises what is a defect? Blue eyes are considered inferior because people with blue eyes generally test to have lower eyesight than those of us with darker eyes. Left handed people lives slightly shorter lives than right handed people (a consequence of living in a right hand world?) Should we screen for these defects and correct them too? Although doing this will reduce genetic diversity, which is the hallmark of evolution, the fact that we are not 100% carbon copies. With less genetic diversity a population becomes more susceptible to diseases and genetic abnormalities...

As a black man I too take great offense at homosexuals using the race comparison. I think its a rare event when a cop pulls a homosexual over foR the mere fact that they're gay or the security people follows the gay around the dept. store due to their homosexuality. Something tells me more blacks are descriminated against in terms of housing, banking, mortgages. I think more blacks attend inferior schools than gays. In fact I think it woiuld be fair to say that the average gay is better educated, better housed, morepolitically influential and born with more trust funds than the average black. Do not compare me with a natural but abnormal aboration of nature.