BINGO!
That’s the parallel that I’m trying to get you to see, wring.
Like this one?
My point is that the whole ‘it’s a choice’ issue is tangential to shit that really matters.
Someone implies that you’re a liar, or mistaken about the nature of your sexuality? Boo hoo, who fucking cares! Some Charlie Church thinks you’re a sinner? That same guy thinks I’m a sinner too, BFD, you don’t hear me crying about it.
What matters is whether or not you’re treated as a full individual with the rights everyone else gets.
Black = stupid is inevitably going to lead to unequal treatment. Nobody wants to give a stupid person an important job, for instance. How does the ‘it’s a choice’ thing result in unequal treatment?
I did? Oh, you mean the point where I said you were being pedantic, where I showed that you were accusing the vague and general “you”, rather than any specific person. Is that what you’re referring to? If so, that was hardly a concession.
Doors, you said that I called people homophobes simply for disagreeing with me. I said that that was not the case. You looked, but were unable to find a cite where I did such a thing.
Fine. I understand that you and I will disagree. But through all of these threads, I have tried to play by the rules: I have NOT called anyone a homophobe simply for disagreeing with me. I have never expanded my definition of what beliefs/behaviors/whatever I believe to be motivated by homophobia. I have tried to make it as clear as possible why I have reached the conclusions I have reached, but because I will not change my definition I get flamed.
Fine, whatever. My entire point of my last mention of you was that I hoped you could see, after your cite search, that–no matter how much we may disagree about this–I have not, in fact, called people homophobic simply for disagreeing with me.
And Cheese, nobody’s boohooing; my whole point, this entire series of threads, has been “who the fuck cares!” I’m not crying, I’m just saying that if someone thinks I’m a sinner, that is 100% his problem, and none of mine. When Charlie Church votes to discriminate against me, I understandably get my back up; such things as who I want to spend most of my time with should NOT be decided by a public vote. That’s all. End of story.
If someone tries to tell me that THEIR OPINION ON HOMOSEXUALITY is relevant to how I live my life, IRL I simply don’t waste time with them. Here, in deference to this Board, I try to engage with them as well as I’m able. But I’m certainly not going to change what I believe just to appease them.
Orientation is not a choice. Behavior is.
I know this is inconvenient to your position, but it is true nevertheless.
Regards,
Shodan
Too bad you choose to keep your head up your ass.
With humble apologies, I don’t know why this is so diffcult for some of you to grasp.
(I snipped the part of your post that I wanted to address. Please forgive me if you think that I have taken it out of context or confused your intended meaning.)
You say that “if” a person believes that homosexuality is a “choice,” then he/she may be “potentially” ignorant but, as a result, may not be “necessarily” homophobic.
I would posit that such a person *is ** homophobic * because he or she is ignorant. IMHO, that’s the great thing about homophobia–you can change, especially if the source of you homophobia is ignorance and not hate.
It seems to me that you keep harping on this “devil’s advocate” course in your posts. Essentially, you keep agreeing with lissener in that homosexuality is not a “choice,” but want to argue that it is perfectly valid and not homophobic if someone else does.
I can’t help but ask “why?”
I don’t know if you both have some history on this board. Maybe, maybe not, but why is it so hard for you to accept that to a homosexual hearing that his/her entire life of romantic love can be reduced to a “choice” is offensive to that person? And because of it think that the person advocating such a position is homophobic?
Heck, I’m a straight woman and can understand where lissener is coming from.
I was born Native American (American Indian, for you folks who think that everyone born in the US is “native” and American…, more specifically, Mojave). I was born this way and, as a result of my upbringing (the whole nature/nuture thing), I self-identify as Mojave. Do people know this when they see me on the street? No. I can pass, just like homosexuals can pass. Does that mean I want to? No, it does not. In fact, I cannot. Being Mojave is the same as being female.
If someone said that I “choose” to be Mojave, I would think that person deluded. And racist. I see no difference with homosexual people and homophobes.
I guess that’s how I see this discussion. Sorry for using a personal story–it’s not an appeal to authority or anything of the like. Just my $0.02.
Still, equal rights are great, correct? But how truly equal can they be if the person(s) acknowledging/granting them think that your entire personhood is subject to change? Why bother supporting such rights at all? Why not, instead, advocate for that change? It’s not like such a person could really envision a (homosexual, Mojave, etc.) life that is so precariously perched on the wall of self-choice as valid as his/hers. Why support or fight for equal rights for a person who can change? Especially when the dominate society thinks it is such an easy and/or necessary thing to do?
lissener, keep fighting the good fight, but recognize when it’s time for rest. Be well.
ps. I don’t think you are a One-Trick Pony. I didn’t know anything about you outside of your participation in film threads. Though, I still do think that you are a film snob. Ease up in Cafe Society, will ya?
Upon preview…
With all respect, Shodan, behavior and orientation are not so easily separated. I was heterosexual before I even knew what the word meant. I am heterosexual even if I choose to be celibate. But, why should I (or you, if you are heterosexual) refrain from heterosexual relationships (“behavior”)? Should we be denied rights because we “choose” to live as heterosexuals? Should we worry about “heterophobes?”
That’s the crux of the very serious problem here. He’s inferring merely from someone’s position on a question of facts their attitudes on matters of moral judgement. That’s very clearly a very suspect TYPE of move. We easily recognize how illicit it is when creationists accuse those who believe in evolution of being crude Spencerites, and I’m not sure that lisseners inferrences are any more fair.
Issues like identity, choice, natural predisposition, and so on, are deep philosophical issues: issues much deeper than anyone’s saying "well, this is how I feel it is (since those feelings are in part precisely the sorts of things which are the subject of inquiry!). That lissener simply wants no debte on these issues is, in my opinion, not wrong for him, if he’s just not interested in the discussion. But his stated reasons for not being interested are highly suspect.
I think homosexuality and homosexual acts are great. There is nothing more wrong with them than there are with any sexual acts, and they raise no new moral dilemnas at all. Yet, I’m not convinced that homosexuality is a genetically derived choice at all, regardless of how people generally interpret their experience of identity. Not even because I have any particular interest in homosexuality in particular, but indeed because I’m seriously trying to examine issues of identity and finding many conventional assumptions to be, at the very least, flawed.
The idea that, just because I want to argue with a philosophical point of fact that’s far broader than homosexuality, I should fall under the category of “homophobe,” is, simply put, ridiculous. It’s flatly invalid to infer anything about ones attitude about homosexuality from their unwillingness to grant a factual point in someone’s particular dogma. In my case, that inference is plainly false.
That lissener thinks it’s so obvious as to mean that anyone who disagrees is an idiot is his own business, but he can’t have it both ways: he can’t both refuse to debate a point AND expect his accusations to be accorded any higher status than tedious slander.
It might be, but only because they’ve pre-injected their own prejorative into the concept of “choice.” “Reduced” to a choice? For some philosophies, that would read “elevated” to a choice," which is an entirely different spin. So whether you are offended or not seems to depend more on whether or not you choose to mischaracterize what someone else has said, adding a prejorative that may or may not have been there in the first place.
I think the hubbub around homosexuality being a choice exists primarily because of Christianity. It matters to Christian homosexuals because their religion gives the presumption that homosexuality is morally wrong, and there is a burden of proof to show that it is acceptable: a burden that some believe can be met only if homosexuality is shown to be a “god-given” trait (“why would god create me this way, with this sort of love in me, if it is wrong?”). However, puncture the assumption that homosexuality is wrong to begin with, and there is little urgency to the debate over choice. If there is no presumption that homosexuality is wrong, then the issue of whether or not it is in some or all cases a “choice” has little bearing on anyone’s basic humanity, treatment under the law, and so on.
Hmm. From what I can see, despite what many people on this thread argue, if homosexuality were proved tomorrow to be a choice, I believe that it would, for the great majority of people, legally (and probably morally) justify laws against its sexual practices, as well as any and all efforts to “deprogram” gay people (such as those being done by many churches at this moment). After all, if you want to avoid these laws, just choose to stop being gay. If you can choose one, you can choose the reverse.
Now, as scary as this prospect is, whether this makes the position inherently homophobic is another thing entirely.
LISSENER –
How is it possible that you don’t see the problem with this? “I’m not calling you a homophobe because you disagree with me. I’m calling you a homophobe because you disagree with “the truth” – as decreed by me.” What fresh semantic hell is this? Since when are you the arbiter of truth for anyone other than yourself?
Try to process this: It is perfectly possible to believe that homosexual acts are immoral, and that, therefore, a practicing homosexual is “less moral” (in so far as the subject of sexual practices only is concerned) that a person who is not a practicing homosexual. This does not mean that the person holding that belief necessarily thinks the homosexual is “less human.” This does not mean the person holding the belief necessarily thinks homosexuals should be treated any differently in any way. In fact, a person holding this belief may well consider him- or herself to be just as morally frail and erring as the homosexual – for reasons other than sexuality.
Now, “homophobia” is defined as “fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men [or] behavior based on such a feeling.” (Dictionary.com) The person described above does not fit the definition. He/she is not afraid of gay people; he/she does not hold them in contempt for a perceived poor moral choice, especially keeping in mind that none of us are morally perfect; he/she does not base any behavior on “such a feeling” (because it’s not a feeling he/she has in the first place).
YOU want to expand that definition so that anyone holding this particular belief – manifested through behavior or not – is a homophobe. AND with that LISSENER-decreed definition in mind, you pass the word “homophobe” out like after-dinner mints, and then laughably attempt to defend your draconian, alienating edict on the basis of, hey, it’s not just your opinion, it’s “the truth.”
Bullshit it’s the truth. If a person does not believe another’s moral failing makes that person “worse” than anyone else (because we all have moral failings), and if that person doesn’t treat the other person any differently, in any way, then that person is NOT a homophobe under any reasonable definition of the term.
It is perfectly possible for people of good will to disagree. People who disagree with you are not necessarily liars, nor are they necessarily homophobes. So kindly stop claiming to have the hotline to “the truth” on this subject, because you don’t.
Shit, you called me a homophobe, and I agree with you. Betcha didn’t know that, did you? But then, why would you, since you labelled me a homophobe without ever even bothering to ask.
Okay. You’re right. You’re so fucking right already.
I was gay before I knew what gay was, I was about ten when I had my first crush on a guy. No choice involved. If you’d asked the ten-year-old me what I wanted, to be gay or straight, I’d never have understood the question. If you explained it, and what being gay and straight mean in the context of our society, I’d have chosen to be straight.
So, that part’s okay, right? I didn’t have any choice in the matter, I didn’t know. Can I have that, at least? Can that be all right with you, Shodan, you worthlessly, willfully ignorant piece of human detrius?
What’s wrong, apparently, is that I’ve chosen to act on my feelings of love for my boyfriend. We live together, we support each other, we love each other, we handle our problems and our finances together, we rub each others’ backs when we’re sore, we watch TV together, we make each other dinner and we **have sex!!! **. Instead of sitting across the room, or preferably across the continent, and staring at each other longinly, we choose to make each other happy in the best way we know how, by fulfilling each others’ desires, by giving each other pleasure, by making our desire for each other known, by growing closer, more trusting, more loving each time we wander into the bedroom holding hands.
What the fuck difference does that make to you, you smug self-important asspimple? Why does that make us any worse than you? How the fuck can you live with yourself when you have a worldview that proclaims that people who love each other are inferior?
I’m so fucking sick of you, and your impenetrable Fortress of Ignorance, built out of the fear that your opinions may not be the most important thing on the planet, that I’ve finally told you what I think of you smarmy, mewling, pompous excuse for a perspective, despite my best efforts to treat you as if you were in actuality deserving of respect.
Parse this post all you want, you sanctimonious jackass. Get all offended, give examples of how badly I’ve misrepresented you, twist whatever language you feel like, but still you’ll know that someone out here, a person who has read just about every word you have to offer on this subject, thinks you’re completely and utterly contemptible.
Some cites:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=220244
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=205895&perpage=50
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=219309&perpage=50
In your delightfully civil and yet brutally ignorant fashion, you’re making the world a palace to hatred, to fear, to intolerance, and to injustice. I’m sure you’re proud of yourself, and you have no idea what I’m talking about, and you’ve come up with a few dozen ways to defend yourself already while keeping what you believe to be your conscience sparkly clean.
That’s not your conscience. That’s your ego. If your conscience isn’t dead already, it’s nearly suffocated under an avalance of self-righteous self-justification.
Take it out, dust it off, sit it down and ask it… how can I still call myself a human being, when I use people’s love as a justification for calling them sinners?
Or, you could just sink back down into the mire of your fetid indignation, and keep trying to tell yourself that believing you’re superior to a whole class of people is just plain worth it.
I don’t know that I necessarily accept that accusing someone else of a fault is made any less insulting by claiming to have the same faults. I mean, if I were to say, “All black people are stupid, but I’m not a racist: I’m not too bright myself,” would that make what I said okay?
I’m also not certain how one can say that homosexuality is a sin without the strong implication that gay people should stop being gay. I can’t help but feel it’s an inherently homophobic proposition. The “I’m a sinner too” caveat doesn’t change anything, because what is insulting is the insistence on adding a moral value to something that is morally neutral.
But, as with everything, there are degrees of homophobia. Someone who believes that homosexuality is a sin, but doesn’t fight against giving gays all the same legal rights as straights, well, who gives a shit about their beliefs? People believe in all sorts of stupid stuff. So long as they’re not using their beliefs to hurt other people, then I don’t have a problem with them. Yeah, they’re just a little homophobic, but not enough to make a federal case out of it. Heck, nobody’s perfect, right?
On preview, MrVisible, if you were single and I were gay, I would so want to marry you right now.
applauds MrVisisble
Wow. Shodan cops it in this thread, and also cops an absolute caning in GD on the same day from minty.
To some extent, I agree with Shodan. I believe that behaviour is a choice. And if Shodan chose to stop behaving like a stupid fucking asshole, it couldn’t hurt. 
My, my - how you do run on.
Don’t tell me - tell lissener.
Sure. What do you want from me, a permission slip?
No, you haven’t misrepresented any of my quotes at all. And I don’t think you are “completely and utterly contemptible”.
See, here’s the difference. I think we can disagree on things and still not hate each other. lissener and, apparently, you, disagree.
My indignation?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, not to side myself with shodan after he got a whumping from Mr. visible, I’d like to steal his point and turn it in a different direction.
If someone was gay, and new that the family, neighbourhood, society that they were a member of were to turn against them if they were to out themselves, they have a choice in front of them.
do they reject their true orientation, and behave as a straight person would be expected to in their environment (marry, have children, buy a home with a white picket fence and settle into surburbia etc. ) or do they out themselves and take the consequence their decision would bring?
Do they stay true to themselves or true to what their environment expects of them?
that would be my interpretation of shodans statement, although I feel he has a different idea.
Lissenera, about the choice thing…
This is a note of miniscule importance but it seems no-one has brought it up so I thought I’d do it. You said that close to 100% of gay people stated that homosexuality was not a choice. Ok. But… wouldn’t anyone who actually did** think it was a choice more then likely chose not to be homosexual, and thus not be represented?
I’m assuming a majority would chose not to be gay mainly because people tend to want to be part of the… well, majority and be as ‘normal’ as possible.
I don’t believe sexual orientation is a choice, I just thought that the particular statement had a flaw. Actually, if I could chose I would chose to be gay instead of straight.
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard someone say this. May I ask why you would choose to be gay if given the option?
A quick aside to Doorman, Alice and Aries: Would it be ok for me to say I love the Christian, but I hate their Christianity? 'Cause we covered that ground a while back and pretty much decided it was a bunch of horseshit - to dismiss the “practice” of something so important to the core of one’s being (choice or not) is insulting and demeaning, IMHO.
Also, lissener’s personal definition aside, it might be helpful (though not by any means definitive) to look at a more universal definition:
I’d say the “irrational” part is a lot of what lissener is focusing on, where as the “discrimination” part is what others see as the crux of the issue.
Frankly, I’m a little surprised, lissener, that you’re hinging your animosity on whether or not people think it’s a choice. I mean, I understand what you’re getting at - those who think it is obviously haven’t thought it through logically, they dismiss first-hand accounts directly from gay people (which, in effect, calls them liars), and it’s very likely that, given that mindset, they have hidden biases that point more towards homophobia than not (or at least do not make them “pro-gay”). But, really, choice oughtn’t even be an issue. I mean, what if it were a choice? Isn’t this country based on the freedom to choose to live one’s life as they see fit, as long as they don’t harm anyone else? Would those who did choose be exempt from your ire against those who would discriminate against them?
I see both sides of the coin here, that society is certainly not meeting the equality of the gay community in comparison to the straight community, but also that overzealousness doesn’t do anything but cause divisiveness. Yes, I agree that those who “love the sinner but hate the sin” or who “disapprove of homosexuality” are ignorant, biased, and that there is a relatively high chance they are truly homophobes, but I also think that, given enough logic, patience and understanding, they might eventually change their minds.
(And I write this knowing full well I’ve been just as zealous as you from time to time, that I’ve often not been patient with bigots, and that I will likely never trust or believe someone who treats me 100% nicely yet still thinks my sexual orientation, or the actions based on it, is sinful.)
Esprix