Well, they have a lot in common, but remember, analogies are never perfect: if they were they wouldn’t be analogies. So, it can be “analogous” without being equivalent.
Oh, please. There are thousands of people who would become cannibals if they thought it was the cool thing to do this year. I have little doubt that many people have gotten involved in gay relationships merely because they believe it is a worldly and sophisticated thing to do. I point to the case of Ann Heche who discovered she was gay when a relationship with Ellen Degeneres seemed like a good career move and discovered she wasn’t really gay when Ellen’s star seemed to be fadiing. Quite possibly there are some people who are “born that way,” and homosexuality is not for them a choice. But it doesn’t automatically follow that everyone who adopts a gay lifestyle has no choice in the matter whatsoever.
It is ridiculous to argue that a taboo is meaningless because no one would ever violate the taboo unless they were driven by strong biological urges. People often violate even the strongest of taboos; there is a strong taboo against incest, yet cases of incest turn up with monotonous regularity. It wouldn’t be reasonable to argue that the taboo against incest is therefore somehow invalid merely because some people will violate the taboo, no matter what.
It doesn’t matter whether or not homosexuality is “natural.” The “naturalness” of an act has little bearing on its moral acceptabilty. It would be perfectly natural to punch someone in the mouth if you got angry with them, but the naturalness of the act has little or no bearing on whether or not the act was moral.
The case for or against gay marriage has to be argued on some basis other than the “naturalness” of homosexuality. And please note that principle works both ways. Those opposed to gay marriage specifically or homosexuality generally must argue on some basis other than its “naturalness” or “unnaturalness.”
I am immensely skeptical that everyone who indulges himself/herself in homosexuality was driven by some need over which he/she had no control whatsoever. The scientific evidence is sketchy at best, and even if it can be proven that * some * people are sexually attracted to members of their own gender through no choice of their own, it doesn’t automatically follow that * everyone * who makes a similar choice has no control over his/her choices.
It is obvious that some people will become homosexual no matter what society has to say about it. The question is about what accommodation, if any, society ought to make to those who choose to practice homosexuality. And that question can’t be settled solely on the question of whether or not homosexuality is “natural.”
I am very much a fence sitter when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. But you are not going to pull me off the fence over to your side merely by claiming that homosexuality is “natural” or “unnatural.”
It makes no sense to me why someone would choose to be part of a minority who aren’t equal under the law or in society.
You might choose to further your career by dating someone (hey! straight people do that as well. and like gay people, they choose whether they act upon their urges) but you can’t choose who you’re attracted to.
Yes, I agree that something coming from biological instincts doesn’t make it moral - but homosexuality isn’t immoral anyway, so that doesn’t matter.
Brilliant. Every major debate we have these days seems to rely heavily on analogies. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but you also have to consider a thing unto itself at times. There are ways in which it makes sense to compare sexuality to race, and there are instances in which it falls short. But the thing that counts the most in my opinion is that both race and sexuality should not be grounds for discriminating against people because neither one tells you anything about the content of a person’s character.
And marrying a man really helped Heche’s career a ton. :rolleyes:
Anne Heche is also severely mentally ill (as evidenced by her “UFO” hitchhiking incident in Fresno, the fact that she speaks in her own language, and wrote at length about her hallucinations and family history of severe mental illness in her autobiography Call Me Crazy). I don’t think she’s exactly a fair example.
True; using Anne Heche to argue that sexual orientation is a chosen trait is kind of like using Michael Jackson to argue that skin color is a chosen trait.
I’m curious. When you chose to become heterosexual, did you do so because it’s socially acceptable, or perhaps because you thought it would help your career?
Or maybe you did so because you simply are heterosexual. I know that’s how it worked for me. I didn’t choose to be heterosexual; I just am heterosexual. It doesn’t make any sense to me that it’s okay for me to act on that heterosexuality with a willing partner, but it isn’t okay for someone to act on their homosexuality with a willing partner. It’s ridiculous.
I agree that it’s wrong to make a judgment on someone who didn’t “do” anything to warrant such treatment. It’s also wrong to make a judgment on someone who didn’t “do” anything wrong. And for it to be “wrong” in a legal sense, it has to be illegal… and the Supreme Court ruled that it isn’t. So, if being gay isn’t a choice, and acting on it isn’t illegal, how can it possibly be okay to say homosexuals can’t be committed to one another just like anyone else?
Hell, I’d regard 1) and 3) as sufficient.
The “suspect category” regarding discrimination is not homosexuality but sexual orientation – i.e., a hypothetical gay person in a position of authority may not legally discriminate against heterosexuals.
No one is sure what causes sexual orientation to break as it does, but there is a pretty clear set of evidence that it is (a) internal, (b) unchosen, and © largely immutable.
The person deeply immured in the closet who never allows anyone to know that he or she is gay, is nonetheless gay. Ergo, the idea that behavior is the criterion is in error – what is being said is that that person is entitled to be open and honest about his/her sexuality without fear of repercussions.
Yes, it’s an important distinction for a lot of people, unfortunately so.
Personally, I’m not convinced that homosexuality is completely biologically determined, because that doesn’t fit in with what I know about genetics (which is admittedly very little). I’m more inclined to think that it’s a combination of biology, environmental factors, and who knows what else – sunspots, for all I know or care. What I do know is that I can’t change it. I can’t not be gay. And if someone came up to me at this point and gave me a 100%-guaranteed-success-rate way of turning myself straight, I wouldn’t do it. I’m finally pretty happy with who I am, and how I’ve turned out so far. So the only “choice” for me is to be out and try to live the life I always imagined myself living, but with a man instead of a woman. Or to stay celibate and lonely for the rest of my life.
And I also know that that’s completely irrelevant in a discussion about civil rights.
The reason it’s wrong to be prejudiced against black people isn’t because they can’t turn white. The reason it’s wrong is because they’re people. People have unalienable rights, not “groups” or “communities.” That’s what the all men are created equal bit is about.
So my question is: what is it that gay people are “doing” that they warrant such treatment?
Even if homosexuality were entirely a choice, why would that make anything different? Why would it be okay to say that homosexuals chose to be homosexuals, so they have to live with the consequences of that choice? Why are there consequences? I mean, other than the obvious one that your pool of potential life partners shrinks considerably.
ooh, a zombie thread! Anybody seen Wrenchslinger since the “pay to post” days arrived? I don’t think he’ll be responding to the more recent queries, sadly.
Dammit. So I guess there’s no use in posting my pithy and long-winded response to LonesomePolecat’s post, either, is there?
Well, the short version: vote to support gay marriage, unless you can come up with a good reason why you shouldn’t.
Dang. I got all worked up for nothing.
Not me. Fat people having sex is gross, and I don’t need that image in my head. So I’m against it.
Of course, I’m kidding.
One can be gay (or straight or bisexual) without ever engaging in any kind of sexual behavior. It is made manifest in one’s innate desires, not in one’s actions.
JOhn.
I know it is popular these days to say that race has been proven to have no biological significance. That may or may not be true (there seems to be an awful lot of attention paid to it in the medical community when studying diabetes, genetic diseases, etc.). But I think the OP is looking at sociology, which is a completely different question, involving perception and relevance.
Race as a sociological phenomenon objectively exists. When I’m walking down the street, I can tell right away, 95 times out of 100, whether someone is white, black, East Asian or mestizo. I speculate that anyone chosen at random would identify the same 95 people the same way. (There are always a few mixed-race or ambiguous-looking folks).
Race is sociologically relevant. If a person is prejudiced, it means he treats people differently based on his perception of their race, and as I have argued above, perception of race is not a matter of debate the vast majority of the time.
Sexual orientation is much harder to identify simply by looking at a person, and often is a secret from even close acquaintances. Then there’s the debate about whether it’s innate or chosen. So sexual orientation is in many respects not analogous to race, but not for the reasons elucidator gave.
*Gay *or *straight *isn’t about who’s touchin your dick when you come; it’s about who you lie awake nights thinking about.