To demonize them. With conservatives it’s always about malice; “the cruelty is the point”.
If it’s not something chosen then it’s harder to justify calling for their persecution and death.
I am not motivated by malice or cruelty and thus refute your argument.
~Max
You, as an individual, cannot refute an argument aimed at large groups of people. You are less a refutation and more an aberration.
Yeah. If we can’t characterize a group that has exceptions to the characterization, then we pretty much can’t discuss groups at all. That’s a standard rhetorical trick the Right likes to use to shut down discussion of it, I see it all the time.
Then there’s the issue that we can’t read minds, only judge by actions. Claiming purity of motive is meaningless, both because the rest of us can’t tell and because results are what matters.
And on top of that since personal attacks will get you into trouble it’s rather disingenuous for someone to defend a group by claiming themself as a counterexample, since nobody is allowed to contradict them (outside of the Pit at least). If it was a third party at least we could have an actual discussion about it.
If being gay is a choice, then the persecution you receive for being gay is your fault. SImple!
Because transphobia is so much more benign than homophobia?
This is a really good point. I started trying to make a similar point but was having trouble expressing it in a way that didn’t imply that anyone who follows this chain of logic is closeted and struggling with gay attraction, which is a funny meme but probably not true; but that attitude is influencial to that subgroup whether they personally have these feelings or not. I’m glad I decided to read on before commenting because you hit the nail on the head.
I remember arguing with someone on this very board who thought it was a choice, and their logic was IIRC something like “they never found a gene for gayness and would have by now if there was one so it has to be a choice.” I won’t say who it was in case I misremember and also they may not be around anymore to defend themselves or tell us they changed their views. It’s been a few years.
On what data did you base this generalization? What “misbehaviors” do you think these teens are “getting away with”?
As for the question in the OP, conservatives tend to have simple, black-and-white perspectives. Believing it’s a choice that’s become a bad habit, means the young gay person can simply be “cured” at a deprogramming camp. To believe it’s NOT a choice would mean–to the religious right, anyway–that God created some people to be gay, which means it couldn’t be a sin, and they can’t have THAT.
I’m not sure that they necessarily think that if someone were made a certain way, that it’s sinless. I’ve heard conservatives argue that some people are simply born to be homicidal or evil in some way and didn’t choose it, but are still wrong for following the urge.
The whole notion that it is a “choice” is absurd in the extreme. Who sits in their room as a teen and decides whether they want to be gay or straight (or other options but keeping it simple for the sake of argument)?
Absolutely no one. It never happens. No one does that. Indeed, I’ve never met a gay person who said they would “choose” to be gay when they were 13-14 because it comes with a lot of problems (which is not to say they are not perfectly happy with their sexuality…just being hetero is a lot easier in society).
No, that’s not really a part of it for conservative Christians. Remember, a cornerstone of Christian philosophy is the concept of Original Sin. All humans are inherently sinful, and it’s only through the grace of Jesus that we can be cleansed of sin and enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In fact, this is precisely the justification many of these Christians use to refute accusations of bigotry: in their view, every human is constantly sinning, so calling homosexuals out as sinners isn’t prejudice, because they’re not saying gay people are worse than straight people.
That’s because the people saying this are not, generally, talking about “who you’re attracted to” as a choice, they’re talking about whether or not you act on that attraction as a choice.
So, to them, the options are straight or a life of celibacy and being single? 
Yes. Remember that celibacy was an elevated virtue in Christianity for more than 1500 years. As it still is, in the Roman Catholic church.
Even if it was a choice, which it isn’t, why should they care? It’s none of their fucking business.
The probably factual ones would be:
- More similarity of interests and outlooks.
- Much more evenly matched interest in engaging in sex.
- Much more evenly matched duration of sexual activities to reach a climax.
Given that sex is a primal urge and the foundation of many an addiction, I would generally say that it’s foolhardy to diminish the selling power of the latter two there.
The extra theories that you would probably get from conservatives would probably be 1) attention mongering, 2) corruption by cultish forces.
It’s hard for me to imagine that the benefits are materially different from the benefits that accrue to any marginalized population in the US – derision, exclusion, disenfranchisement, harassment, demonization, fear-mongering, micro-aggressions, bullying, and – in the extreme – violence sometimes leading to death.
Where do I sign??
What do the Conservatives who hold these views think? I have no Earthly idea.
I think LBJ had it about right, though:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
–Lyndon B. Johnson
[Insert the name of your favorite minority in place of “colored man.” It retains every morsel of its original meaning.]
And once you throw all that stuff that they think the Bible says, I have even less of an idea how they make this work in their minds.
“You can’t reason a person out of a belief that they didn’t use reason to hold in the first place.”
– [Paraphrasing] Jonathan Swift
Yes, but as far as I can tell, homosexuals are the only such group that conservatives claim chose, of their own free will, to be in. Conservatives never say that black people chose their race, or that women chose their chromosomes, or that left-handed people chose to be left-handed. So, conservatives wouldn’t claim that there are benefits of being black/female/lefty or that any decision was involved.
:cough: Trans people. :cough:
I simply think they picked the only group where they think they can plausibly sell such a claim.
I never chose my sexual preference. I also never chose my eye color or my height.
But as long as there is – in their minds, and to their target audience – a case to be made (and we’ve seen this nearly every single day since conservative media got a toehold), they’ll make that case.
It’s similar to…
One of the innumerable consequences of the functional illiteracy of many/most social conservatives is their inability to grasp a sense of history.
As each group that they’ve aggressively tried to marginalize began to get equal rights, the sky simply didn’t fall. The social conservatives – as is pretty much always the case – were utterly and completely wrong.
But rather than do a bit of introspection and reflection, they set their sights on whatever their next vulnerable bogeyman of choice must be. As “God” needs the “devil,” these social conservatives constantly need some shadowy figure to rail against.
The demagogues – literally or metaphorically – maintain a list. Once it isn’t LGBTQ+ people, somebody will surely have their turn in the barrel.