I’ve never liked having to argue for my rights from a genetic perspective – it’s degrading.
The question is interesting from a scientific point of view, and from a philosophical point of view, but it shouldn’t have to be the basis for an argument about fundamental human rights.
I prefer to make the Humanist/Enlightenment argument – the measure of immorality is human suffering caused. From that perspective, homophobia is immoral and homosexuality is not.
I also like to point out that in most of Western Civilization, freedom of religion is a given – and that means freedom from the religious dictates of others.
But I learned very early on that these arguments don’t carry much weight with a certain group of people. So – just as I’ve had to learn how to quote Scripture when I’m not Christian – I’ve had to learn how to hold my own in an argument about genetics, even when I think these discussions don’t really matter much in the grand scheme of things.
Just to be clear, I do believe homosexual desire is genetic. I just don’t think that detail is any more relevant to human affairs than, say, reconciling Einsteinian physics with Quantum Mechanics. It’s a scientific question, and maybe a philosophical one, but shouldn’t have any relevance to rights or legislation.
Is the Church of England mainstream enough? The communion is in the midst of tearing itself apart over the ordination of Jeffrey John, Dean of St Alban–a gay, but celibate man (relatedlinks). Dr John turned down a bishopric after protests from the church’s evangelical wing–at home, plus most of the church in Africa and Asia.
So is it just a problem with the “behaviour”, or do mainstream religion figures have a problem with the nasty old fags per se?
So wait, are you saying that you accept that attraction isn’t within our control, or that you don’t? I mean, it should be obvious. If not, try this quick test. Make yourself be attracted to Brad Pitt. Not your type? Ewan McGregor then? Matt Damon? George Clooney? Blair Underwood? B.D. Wong? Antonio Banderas? What, you can’t do it? Really?
It was an Australian company that used to make water tankers. Outdoor labourers used to take a break and hang around the furphy for a drink and to talk bullshit in general. Tall tales in other words.
I can’t imagine anybody under fifty using the term but I’ve only been back in Australia for a couple of years and still hear weird stuff so who knows?
It’s just a problem with “the behaviour”. Your links mention that what the evangelicals in Africa object to is not that he is gay, but what he believes about homosexuality (and other issues).
I’m saying that attraction, that is to say, orientation, isn’t within our control, and that behavior is. That’s why I said “behavior”, not “orientation”.
Nope, sorry, doesn’t imply anything of the sort.
What I said was that orientation does not affect the degree of control a person has over his or her behavior. You can be gay, and choose whether or not to engage in sex just as straight people do. If you decided for whatever reason that sex for you is wrong, then you can refrain from sex. You will not change your orientation, but you will control your behavior. A married gay man is still gay; a straight convict in a sexual relationship with another convict is still straight.
But that was more important to you than the fact that Bush supports a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gay marriage? I would have thought that anyone who would consider the two candidates’ attitudes towards gays to be a deciding factor would have made up his mind a long time ago.
What you said there, I agree with. But I don’t see any connection between what you say there and the statement “Sexual behavior is not outside of human control… else every straight man would be a rapist.” What is that saying, if not that left to his own purely sexual desires, every straight man would force unconsensual, undesired sex onto women?
This is true, and it’s another reason I don’t like having to argue “Homosexuality is not a choice.”
There’s no reason whatever to legislate against homosexuality more than heterosexuality, except the religious convictions of a few. We no longer recognize the right of one religion to dictate laws. These are much better reasons to put forward in the fight for our equal rights.
My worry is that people arguing for it being a choice, or for the controlability of behaviour have an ulterior motive – they hope to capitalize on people’s prejudices that homosexuality, if controllable, should be controlled.
This is why the argument that “homosexual behaviour is controllable” is dangerous, even if not, in the strictest sense, false.
I don’t think that’s a “worry” that people focusing on homosexuality as a choice have an ulterior motive. I think that’s exactly what’s happening.
I’ve seen it put forth several times, including on this message board, the statement that homosexuality itself isn’t wrong, but homosexual behavior is. In other words, it’s okay if you’re a homo, because you just can’t help it. But you should remain celibate. I have to wonder about the people who say this kind of thing; do they really think that that’s an acceptable life for homosexuals? Or that it’s fair, when the same constraints aren’t expected of heterosexuals?
I have seen people make the point that sexual activity is always chosen from other motives, but it’s true that I’ve never seen that on this board.
(Some people are worried that genetics has become the new fate, which has disturbing implications; others are worried that if we leave free will out of the argument, someone will try to use the argument Shodan mentions above to actually justify heterosexual rape. Both are real fears, but the “homosexual behaviour is controllable” argument is usually put forward by homophobes.)
Since they’ll never have to constrain themselves to that kind of a life, they can easily dismiss the pain involved. Just as a person who’s lead a pampered life from birth can never really know what it’s like to really starve, a sexually active heterosexual can’t know what they’re condemning a person to, when they say we have to live an isolated, passionless, loveless existance.
If you can divert attention from more important aspects of the sexuality debate - like, say, gay marriage, or GLBTU (etc) teen suicide rates, or gay bashing or visitation rights or any number of other legitimate topics - and onto a subject like “But is it a choice?” then you have completely bypassed some important and worthwhile topics in favor of something of considerably less merit.
That is what I am saying - if there were no distinction between orientation and behavior. If people could not control their sexual behavior, then men would all be rapists.
But people can control their sexual behavior. Therefore, men do not all rape.
And gay men can control their sexual behavior. Therefore, a gay orientation does not mean that gay men cannot stop themselves from having gay sex.
There is, in fact, a distinction between orientation and behavior. Being heterosexual does not imply that you have no choice about your own behavior. Being homosexual does not imply that you have no choice about your own behavior.
My mind’s made up by God, don’t confuse me with facts.
Even if two consenting adult homosexuals could control their sexual behavior, why should they? Because you say so? Because the Bible says so? They are not hurting anybody.
Just like if a person wants to drink alone until they are stone cold passed out, who are they hurting. If they want to drink and then drive, that’s another thing.
There is enough abberant, deviant human behavior to focus on. Even among hetrosexuality.
It wasn’t very long ago, maybe two generations, that some people belived it was a bad thing to be left handed. Being born left handed was not a choice. Actually doing things left handed was BAD. So, some parents and schools tried to stop it (sometimes with beatings). Saying gay people were born that way but should not live their own way is pretty much the same thing and is just as wrong. In some ways it is worse. “I don’t like or understand you, so then you must live your entire life alone, with no companionship / partner /whatever, and must never accept yourself for what you are.”
Somehow I misunderstood and thought you were coming down on the “gay is a choice” side of the debate. Sorry.
While I am of the firm belief that you are gay, straight, bi, whatever, and that’s that, I wouldn’t care if it WAS a choice. Unfortunately, I think that makes me part of a minority.
This was a dumb question, but not half as dumb as the fucking flu vaccine question. That is the dumbest question I’ve ever heard in any debate anywhere.
Why would he know? He’s not you. How could he know; does he have some sort of ability to mind meld with you?
I really don’t get it; should I be able to tell whether someone steals because he’s greedy or because he suffers from kleptomania? (Before you start, I’m not comparing homosexuality with a disease, simply questioning how someone who is not gay can be 100% certain it is organic rather than functional.)
Well, there is objective evidence. And the testimony of nearly every gay person in the world. And common sense - why would anyone want to make themselves an outcast if they could help it? The only way I can think of to come to any other conclusion is to ignore all evidence and listen to your homophobic God.
That’s at least in part fair. At least I think it makes you define what you mean by “choice” when you ask this question. Do you truly mean organic, incredible compulsion caused by some known or unknown environmental causes, or true choice.
Although I have my own doubts as to the gay party line on this issue, I myself would probably be somewhat digusted by someone who believes people “choose” to be gay and defines “choice” in this context as conscious-level free choice (as in a man saying, “I think I’ll just have sex with men from now on, why not”).