Carrie Prejean Thinks People Choose To Be Gay

bislane
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 12:19 pm: [report]

Wow, Carrie! I feel so silly now, that I know I couldve saved myself the beatings in high school, my grandmother disowning me and not being able to bring my girlfriend home for Christmas! I should’ve just NOT BEEN BISEXUAL! SO obvious…

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 12:19 pm: [report]

While it’s lovely and all that she’s open and honest about her opinion, it’s still a bit closed-minded these days… While there is the biological argument that people are born a certain sexuality, the oft-ignored Queer Theory is even more liberal and accepting in stating that sexuality, any sexuality, is a learned behavior… that even heterosexuals learn to be that way growing up.  It doesn’t make it a choice.  It doesn’t seem she’s arguing that point, though; quite the opposite.

Also, I love how she brings up in the interview, “I have a lot of friends that are gay.”  It’s like a racist trying to defend themselves by saying, “I have a lot of friends that are [of whatever other race].”

She looks all uppity and pissy in the pictures from the interview.

Kiki T
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 12:25 pm: [report]

it’s so sad to think that she is one of the millions of people that hold this opinion too

Lili420
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 12:28 pm: [report]

Where did she say it was a choice?

retro chic
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 12:30 pm: [report]

Why is anyone surprised our outraged by her statement?—she’s typical of her hypnotized flock of true-believers. She’s moronic enough to do the talk-show circuit not realizing she’s the latest zoo exhibit for ignorance that also provides some form of entertainment.

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 12:50 pm: [report]

She didn’t say outright it’s a choice, but she also didn’t disagree with or correct Wockner when he phrased it that way (asking her more than once).  Interrogatory/legal questioning tactics employ that method to obtain information not only through how the questions are answered, but also through what isn’t said.  She didn’t further elaborate on what she means by “behavior” or argue with Wockner that she doesn’t believe it’s a choice.

rsonnack
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 02:08 pm: [report]

@ Thor, I agree with you about the Queer theory; I just learned about it in my women’s studies class. It’s so hard for people to accept this theory, but I really think it’s true. People aren’t born any certain way, but any sexuality is learned. People can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, but you can also be any combination of these. I think people get so stuck in their “straight” or “gay” ways that they refuse to try anything different. But I agree with you, it’s not a choice. It’s all about what turns you on and what you are interested in.

rsonnack
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 02:12 pm: [report]

P.S. I think “straight” people especially get so stuck in our ways that we think we could never get turned on by someone of the opposite sex. I think if we were brought up in a different way we wouldn’t have these self-imposed restrictions. And i think it’s possible to rid ourselves of these restrictions if we really eliminate any fear of straying from what society expects of us.

Little Lamb
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 02:35 pm: [report]

She would look so much prettier with duct tape…

Alexa
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 04:45 pm: [report]

rsonnack, your “women’s studies” class must’ve left out the information about the evidence of peoples’ sexuality being, at least partially, genetically determined (studies have shown that, with identical twins, for example, if one if gay, the other is about 53% more likely to be gay that is the case with fraternal twins). 

Current theory is that genetics and exposure to hormones in the womb have more to do with orientation (as well as some factors associated with how we see ourselves in terms of gender).  Sexual orientation has very, very little to do with anything being “learned.”

theattack
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 05:30 pm: [report]

@ Alexa,
Just wanted to point out that if the studies were done on twins, they’re likely to be growing up in the same culture, environment, have similar experiences and knowledge, and likely to be nurtured the same way. Not that they will become the same person, but they will have similar backgrounds. These experiences are also credited to forming one’s sexuality.
A more relevant study could be about identical twins that were separated at birth.

Bean's Girl
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 05:36 pm: [report]

Don’t knock it ‘til you try it, Miss California.

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 07:33 pm: [report]

@rsonnack and Alexa:  Both theories argue that it isn’t a choice, but being that they are 2 different sciences (biological vs. social), it’s a little difficult to compare them.  There have been studies showing that hormones in the womb affect genital formation (intersexuals, etc) and may affect sexuality, but the problem with this is that while it doesn’t leave room to say it’s a choice, it sort of lumps it into the category of “deformities/abnormalities”.  And while Queer Theory is more open-minded in saying that sexuality’s a learned behavior, it discounts the biological aspects (therefore making it normal to be any sexuality).  Sex is biological, Gender is social, Sexuality can be both (though most will only argue one or the other).

Alexa
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 07:35 pm: [report]

Gender is not purely a social construct - not even close.  It has biological components as well.

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 07:52 pm: [report]

@Alexa:  Sex=Male/Female - Biological.  Gender=Man/Woman, Boy/Girl - Social.  Gender and Sex are not interchangeable because they are not the same thing.  Gender involves learned behavioral and psychological traits often associated with sex.  “Doing gender” and “gender roles” are socially constructed.

Alexa
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 08:02 pm: [report]

I don’t recall saying gender and sex were interchangeable.  Where did I say that?

Gender identity is your sense of how you see yourself relative to your physical presentation and how you’ve been socialized to understand your “maleness” or “femaleness.”  It involves a biological aspect and is not a purely a social construct; everyone knows male brains and female brains are physically and physiologically different.  Further evidence comes from studies of transgender persons, as well.  TG people have physically different brains - brains that are identical physically as that of their chosen sex.  Pick up a sexual psychology book, please.

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 08:29 pm: [report]

I didn’t say you said that, but thanks for quote mining.  I was simply pointing out the basic arguments and flaws in both theories.  Thanks, too, for assuming that since we have a slight difference of opinion that I’m not educated on other aspects of these theories.  I just don’t see the need to flaunt it all about.

Anyone care to discuss race next?  Because this just isn’t ridiculous enough…

MissPiss
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 08:44 pm: [report]

My BFF is a gay male. He says he was born that way. His opinion on gay marriage? “Gays have a right to be just as miserable as straight people!”

rsonnack
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 09:00 pm: [report]

yeah, alexa, it seems like you just kind of came storming in here assuming we don’t know what we’re talking about. classy of you to put my Women’s Studies class in quotation marks as if it’s not real. it’s a real class, I go every Mon. and Wed. morning at college…Yes, I may just be studying at college so I’m not an expert in it or anything, but I just came in here to express what I believe is true and what makes the most sense based on what I have learned. With this issue, it’s almost impossible to determine the factors behind it, and I don’t know if we will ever know. All your scientific studies don’t really prove anything 100%, as theattack mentioned. There are plenty of homosexual people who say they were born that way and they could never change, and plenty of heterosexual people who say the same thing, but there are also plenty of people who say they could go either way. So obviously, there’s disagreement on both ends of the spectrum. Also, if you’re so well-learned, care to cite any of your sources…? Did you know that 75% of all statistics are made up?

rsonnack
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 09:03 pm: [report]

also, alexa, my class didn’t “leave” anything out, as you suggested. we explore all the theories about sexuality, Queer Theory just happens to be one of them.

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 09:11 pm: [report]

@rsonnack:  Exactly.  =)  They’re both still theories in their respective fields for a reason…
I’d heard that about statistics, but it was much lower - only 40%.  This was a few years ago, though, and statistics are bound to change if more people pull more out of their butts.

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 27 2009 @ 09:31 pm: [report]

It’s not leaving out information, either.  Social science and biological science aren’t the same thing, so there’s not much sense in studying both in-depth when you’re taking a class only studying one of them.  Otherwise, it would be “Female and Women’s Studies”.

Alexa
wrote on April 28 2009 @ 07:12 am: [report]

“it seems like you just kind of came storming in here assuming we don’t know what we’re talking about.”

I could only go on what you posted, and what you and Thor posted suggested you either didn’t know the full story or you were intentionally ignoring it or leaving it out.  Either way, I intended to set it straight.  Countering someone’s erroneous (or incomplete) information doesn’t constitute an “attack.”

“There are plenty of homosexual people who say they were born that way and they could never change, and plenty of heterosexual people who say the same thing, but there are also plenty of people who say they could go either way. So obviously, there’s disagreement on both ends of the spectrum.”

Anecdotes don’t constitute “evidence.” All that really does is demonstrate that sexual orientation exists along a continuum, which we’ve known for over 50 years now (since Kinsey’s days). 

“Social science and biological science aren’t the same thing, so there’s not much sense in studying both in-depth when you’re taking a class only studying one of them.”

If you’re going to go on public forums and respond to something like this, it certainly does behoove one to have an understanding of both sides (or, rather, all sides) of your subject.  Otherwise, you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.  They may be separate sciences, but to understand a subject like this requires you to examine them in more than just their individual contexts.

As for the source of the statistics, I can’t believe your “Queer Theory” studies didn’t include the studies I was referring to.  But, since you and Thor want to take issue with them, I’ll provide you with a link:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

As for the information about the transgender brain, the following article has a wealth of information on the subject, including links to relevant studies: 

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/04/imaging_the_transgen.html

mdtobe
wrote on April 28 2009 @ 07:22 am: [report]

@ theattack:  Twin studies, whether done with twins raised together or separate can give a lot of insight into the genetics of a specific trait.  According to the studies, monozygotic (identical) twins are more than twice as likely to both be gay as dizygotic (fraternal) twins.  This indicates that it is the shared genes between the two children causing the connection.  Also, one of the studies also documents adoptive siblings of homosexuals and they are also less likely to share the same sexuality, again providing strong evidence of a genetic link.

kannf1982
wrote on April 28 2009 @ 07:34 am: [report]

i dont give a Sh*t if it’s learned, is the way you’re born, or whatever.  The point is, I have people I love very much who are gay and who would like to marry their significant others, and they deserve to be able to do that just as much as anyone else, period…especially considering that gay marriage won’t hurt or even remotely affect all the ignorant bigoted naysayers when it comes down to it. People are such closeminded self righteous jerks.

Not to mention, over half of hetero marriages are a complete joke or trainwreck anyway…who are they to judge? Between mama’s boys in need of a security blankey for adulthood, and women more interested in carat size and what plates to get for their crate and barrel registry, hetero marriage in general seems to be more circus than sacrosanct these days anyway. what are we hanging onto?

lawngnome
wrote on April 28 2009 @ 07:38 am: [report]

It doesn’t matter what a beauty pageant contestant thinks. Why don’t they ask them things they might actually be able to answer?  Like questions about self tanner and hair bleaching?

kannf1982
wrote on April 28 2009 @ 07:40 am: [report]

lawngnome…just because this particular girl seems a bit ignorant does not mean vain, pretty or otherwise non bookwormish girls cannot be intelligent or informed.

lawngnome
wrote on April 28 2009 @ 08:09 am: [report]

kannf1982 - It is quite common that attractive people are intelligent, yes.  However, if someone is not gay they cannot talk about the gay experience or what it is like to be gay or why someone is gay.  That is like a white person trying to describe what it is to be black.  Also being informed implies that you are indeed “bookwormish”.  One does not exist without the other.  We don’t gain knowledge via osmosis, you have to seek it out.  If you aren’t well read, or haven’t done research on an issue of current scientific debate than you are just taking out of your ass.

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 28 2009 @ 09:01 am: [report]

@Alexa:  When did I “take issue” with the studies you mentioned?
As far as my comment regarding courses, most people don’t pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per credit hour to learn about one thing when they want to study another.
I’m going to refrain from responding to any more of your comments or directing anything else towards you, as you seem bent on misconstruing the points and opinions of others in order to prove how so much more informed you are on the subject.

LaGiulia
wrote on April 28 2009 @ 09:55 am: [report]

It’s not “lovely” that she’s open about her ignorance. She’s just a very pretty ignorant person.

NdlovukaziThor
wrote on April 28 2009 @ 12:48 pm: [report]

I didn’t say her opinion was lovely, I said it was closed-minded. It’s still brave of someone to express their opinion in front of anyone and everyone, especially when that opinion is incredibly unpopular.