Herman Cain & Sexual Harassment

[dreadfulpenny81]

This week's been interesting for GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain. A story came out that Cain, during his time as the head of the National Restaurant Association, sexually harassed two women who later received cash settlements in exchange for their silence on the matter. A third woman recently came forward stating she was also harassed by

Comments

[byrontengu]

I'm not sure of Cain's stance on other people's sexuality... -- What would that have to do with anything?

Making sexuality and the control of other people's lives a political football while one's own sexuality is out of control is more than fair game. It's along the same lines of hitting Gingrich on the multiple divorces and affairs because he's bigoted against gays and uses the "sanctity or marriage" as a tool. This assumes that he actually did something which I do not know, but he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt when his organization paid the women to go away.

Thing is, Weiner's wiener was out there for the world to see. Not one publication has even printed what Cain supposedly did, so I see no comparison at this time between the two.

Weiner's wiener was not out there for the world to see. It was sent to people who we have every reason to assume wanted to see it. This is a far cry from sexual harassment which is by its nature unwanted. If it's a story when a congressman does something stupid, how can it not be a story when it comes out that a presidential candidate does something else stupid and possibly criminal?

[byrontengu]

"or" should be "of".

[dreadfulpenny81]

If Cain uses the "sanctity of marriage" excuse, then you'd be right, but I honestly haven't heard much about his views on homosexuality and frankly, I don't care. He's already made it known that his personal opinions wouldn't dictate how he leads the country.

[byrontengu]

And you believe that? So, does he consider Roe V Wade to be established law, because that would be a personal opinion. We do know that his opinion is that being gay is a choice, which of course he could actually prove himself. Cain would be a disaster, but the social issues I care about would not really matter. The guy has no experience in world affairs at all.

[dreadfulpenny81]

I think homosexuality is a choice, too. You CHOOSE who you want to be with based on your feelings. Afterall, no one is born knowing what a penis or vagina is or how to use them or what sex is. No one is even born knowing what love is, so how can anyone logically say people are born gay or straight?

So far, he hasn't made any indication one way or the other about legislating sexuality.

[byrontengu]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, else you could voluntarily choose not to be gay, and people like the Bachmans would be not only rich, but actually serving a purpose. No, no one is born with the knowledge of sexual organs, but the fundamentals of attraction are innate, natural and not something people can choose. The science is out on this one.

The danger of saying it is a choice is that it gives weight to false, damaging and hurtful notions like "pray-away-the-gay" or repetitive therapy. These ideas have lead to more pain and suffering than anything called therapy ever should, and there is no scientific bases to believe that they will do anything other than leave people guilt ridden about something they can not control. There is not enough language to describe how wrong this kind of thing is.

[dreadfulpenny81]

I'm sorry, but I just don't feel it's correct that someone is born gay when they don't understand love, attraction, or the things that come with it at birth. I think it's fair to say that people choose who they want to be with based on their emotions and instincts and that's that. But thanks for your input as usual. :)

[byrontengu]

can you control your emotions and instincts? Could you, personally just choose to be gay?

[dreadfulpenny81]

I'm not saying anything about control and I never have. I said people choose who they want to be with based on their emotions and feelings but no one is born knowing what their sexuality is going to be when they don't even know what sex is or the difference between genders. Did you automatically know when you were born that you were going to be with the person you're in a relationship with now? I don't think so. That's my point, nothing more.

[byrontengu]

So it's not a choice. You are attracted to a gender based on things you can not control. This isn't quite clear from your first objection, and it's nothing like what most conservatives mean when they suggest that being gay is a choice.

No one knows what his or her orientation is until they get to an age when they do understand something about gender, certainly. My point is that when that happens, you don't get to choose whether to be gay, straight, bi or anywhere in-between any more than you get to choose your ethnicity.

[dreadfulpenny81]

Their sexuality may not be a choice, but who they want to be with -- whether it be someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex -- IS a choice. It has nothing to do with being born that way. I really don't think a person's sexual orientation is ingrained in them from birth.

[byrontengu]

At the risk of being blunt, that's because you don't really understand the science behind it.

[dreadfulpenny81]

I understand that there have been no conclusive studies verifying the existence of "the gay gene". The results from the three main studies all differed. So far there's several explanations for sexual orientation: genes, hormones, environment, brain structure and uterine development. But in my opinion, it's not enough for me to definitively say that I believe people are born gay. However, I respect the opinion of people who do and expect the same in return.

[byrontengu]

genes, hormones, environment, brain structure and uterine development. None of these are choices at all. It's not a matter of opinion, actually you are proving my case for me.
Furthermore nearly all medical organizations not associated with a church agree that it is simply not a choice. I'm not sure on what you base your assertion.

You know, you could prove it. All you have to do is make up your mind that you want to choose to be gay yourself.

Wait, are you going for the gay is a behavior angle?

[dreadfulpenny81]

What do you mean the "gay is a behavior" angle?

And no, I'm not going to "go gay", although I don't think John would mind as long as he got to watch.

[byrontengu]

Gay as a behavior: it's a philosophy that suggests that unlike gender, ethnicity, or genetics homosexuality is something that one does, rather than something that one is.
It would support the example of a celibate person actually being asexual rather than seeing that person's orientation and desires, which in this example do exist although they are never acted upon, as indicative of some specific sexual orientation.
In other words, I'm a straight male so long as I keep actually having sex with women. If I stop doing that for whatever reason, I am no longer straight.