4 ms·

> Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together. Th

by ebg13 8y ago

> Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together. This is so important and so regularly gets ignored by people on all sides. Once, a long time ago, I was talking to a much-smarter-than-me gay friend about the gay marriage debate in the US, and I said that being gay wasn't a choice and that _therefore_ yada yada. He said the only thing that in hindsight ever really matters, though at the time I'd never heard anyone say it before. He said "So what if it were a choice? What exactly does that change? You can't choose who to spend your life with? You can't choose who to share resources with? You can't choose who gets to be your proxy? Why is choice not important?"

whatshisface 8y ago
The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Your friend's argument would not work at all against people who are against homosexuality, because their answer to all of those questions would simply be "no." The "it's not a choice" argument only makes sense if you put yourself into the shoes of the other side and ask the question "given the resources I have, how could I conclude that gay marriage was acceptable?"
- Udik 8y ago
  > The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow I understand what you mean, but it doesn't seem to be the case. In regards to sexual preferences, for example, there are some that are, arguably, not a choice either, and still are considered absolutely forbidden. > For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Nope, that would be ridiculous. But at the same time having Down's syndrome is not devoid of legal consequences. You'll probably be denied a driving license or the possibility to own guns, and you can argue as much as you want that your condition is perfectly natural and you didn't have a choice, it won't make any difference.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    Having moved on from biblical interpretations, sexual preferences are usually considered absolutely forbidden if participants can't give informed adult consent. So - voyeurism, anything involving children and animals, and so on. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that sexuality can be changed by conscious choice. So if your sexuality runs along those lines you're going to have a bad time, because you'll either have to repress your urges, or risk actions that damage others, possibly with criminal consequences. The edge cases of this can become ridiculous - but still tragic. E.g. there are people who are primarily turned on by paving stones and/or drain covers. It's not really obvious what "natural" means in this context. Is this imprinting? Genetics? Something else? There aren't any good answers. Criminal law does the best it can with them, but it's not clear that choice really applies, and criminal punishment is pointless and ineffective anyway - either as a deterrent or as rehabilitation. The bigger moral question is maybe why some social groups seem obsessed with what they consider sexual deviance - including their beliefs about homosexuality - while apparently ignoring other moral and social questions. What is the psychological process that turns homosexuality into a uniquely disturbing moral problem for them, while other hot-button issues - poverty, diet, government and corporate corruption, take your pick from a long list - are relatively uninteresting for them?
    - andrewflnr 8y ago
      Sex is personal, visceral, and highly emotionally charged, while the other concerns you mentioned can easily stay abstract. There's no mystery there, people are just obsessed with sex. It's another side of the phenomenon by which any idea at all can be made into a sexual innuendo. It's where our mind goes.
- krapp 8y ago
  >The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. The motivation is mostly religious. Homosexuality must be a choice, otherwise God created homosexuals as they are, and homosexuality is just another part of Nature. But if that's true, homosexuality can't be a sin, because sin is always a choice. But homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is (even though it doesn't really,) therefore it must be a choice.
  - traderjane 8y ago
    Right, people are talking about what's spiritually natural. Talking about what's biologically natural is just missing the point. Also, why do you feel the Christian sacred texts doesn't really condemn homosexuality? I feel you have to do a lot of extra-textual analysis and theory-crafting to reach that perspective, so it's no surprise that Christians in general don't buy that idea.
    - krapp 8y ago
      It's been a while, but IIRC, the Bible only condemns homosexual sex specifically. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern inventions. Many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks) saw no conflict between their ideals of what we would consider "straight" sexuality and homosexual relationships. And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. Someone living in Biblical times probably wouldn't have any concept of someone being "straight" or "gay," just of someone following cultural norms or violating cultural taboos. So to say the Bible condemns homosexuality is a misappropriation of the intent of the text outside of the cultural and temporal context to which it was intended to apply.
      - fenwick67 8y ago
        > it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. There is a very convenient Christian doctrine where there are "three types of law in the Bible", which explains that some rules are meant for Israelites and some are meant for everyone (and you [or the church] basically get to guess which apply to you).
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  This seems to be conceding ground that shouldn't be given, though. One of the underlying principles of liberal government is that the government needs to justify any and all restrictions placed on the people. The mirror image of this, is that people don't need any particular reason for doing something.
veryworried 8y ago
It must never be seen as a choice. The answer to all those questions can easily be yes. Society regularly denies people the ability to do things that they feel should be their choice, and it is considered acceptable in some cases that the only recourse for those people should just be to make another choice. The power of choice invites judgement. The homosexual community has a strong distaste for bisexuals because their existence undermines the argument that no one chooses to be homosexual. Your friend should not repeat that argument in a debate again.
- krapp 8y ago
  >The homosexual community has a strong distaste for bisexuals because their existence undermines the argument that no one chooses to be homosexual. No they don't, and no it doesn't. Bisexuals aren't people who "choose" to be gay one minute and "choose" to be straight the next. Rather, they are attracted to both genders, just as homosexuals are attracted to the same gender, and heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite gender.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
There is a great talk by Sonu Bedi of Dartmouth on this theme: https://youtu.be/PqTYSy_vuRQ https://youtu.be/PqTYSy_vuRQ He argues for gay marriage and the right to an abortion substantially on the basis of limited government. The existing regulations are often substantially motivated by religion, which is contrary to the establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...") -- and outside of these motivations the government has not proffered any credible reasons for regulation. In short, there is no reason for the gay community to prove anything; the government has no reason for its regulations, or at best reasons proffered in bad faith. With regards to Professor Bedi's over-arching philosophy, of focusing on reasons, I do have some reservations. In particular, I wonder how he proposes to limit government with only this focus. Just the same, in this case he argues clearly and well, that putting the onus on gay people to prove they deserve the right to marry is a strange place to start from, if we are starting from within a framework of limited government.

by ebg13 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago

The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Your friend's argument would not work at all against people who are against homosexuality, because their answer to all of those questions would simply be "no." The "it's not a choice" argument only makes sense if you put yourself into the shoes of the other side and ask the question "given the resources I have, how could I conclude that gay marriage was acceptable?"

Udik 8y ago
> The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow I understand what you mean, but it doesn't seem to be the case. In regards to sexual preferences, for example, there are some that are, arguably, not a choice either, and still are considered absolutely forbidden. > For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Nope, that would be ridiculous. But at the same time having Down's syndrome is not devoid of legal consequences. You'll probably be denied a driving license or the possibility to own guns, and you can argue as much as you want that your condition is perfectly natural and you didn't have a choice, it won't make any difference.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  Having moved on from biblical interpretations, sexual preferences are usually considered absolutely forbidden if participants can't give informed adult consent. So - voyeurism, anything involving children and animals, and so on. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that sexuality can be changed by conscious choice. So if your sexuality runs along those lines you're going to have a bad time, because you'll either have to repress your urges, or risk actions that damage others, possibly with criminal consequences. The edge cases of this can become ridiculous - but still tragic. E.g. there are people who are primarily turned on by paving stones and/or drain covers. It's not really obvious what "natural" means in this context. Is this imprinting? Genetics? Something else? There aren't any good answers. Criminal law does the best it can with them, but it's not clear that choice really applies, and criminal punishment is pointless and ineffective anyway - either as a deterrent or as rehabilitation. The bigger moral question is maybe why some social groups seem obsessed with what they consider sexual deviance - including their beliefs about homosexuality - while apparently ignoring other moral and social questions. What is the psychological process that turns homosexuality into a uniquely disturbing moral problem for them, while other hot-button issues - poverty, diet, government and corporate corruption, take your pick from a long list - are relatively uninteresting for them?
  - andrewflnr 8y ago
    Sex is personal, visceral, and highly emotionally charged, while the other concerns you mentioned can easily stay abstract. There's no mystery there, people are just obsessed with sex. It's another side of the phenomenon by which any idea at all can be made into a sexual innuendo. It's where our mind goes.
krapp 8y ago
>The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. The motivation is mostly religious. Homosexuality must be a choice, otherwise God created homosexuals as they are, and homosexuality is just another part of Nature. But if that's true, homosexuality can't be a sin, because sin is always a choice. But homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is (even though it doesn't really,) therefore it must be a choice.
- traderjane 8y ago
  Right, people are talking about what's spiritually natural. Talking about what's biologically natural is just missing the point. Also, why do you feel the Christian sacred texts doesn't really condemn homosexuality? I feel you have to do a lot of extra-textual analysis and theory-crafting to reach that perspective, so it's no surprise that Christians in general don't buy that idea.
  - krapp 8y ago
    It's been a while, but IIRC, the Bible only condemns homosexual sex specifically. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern inventions. Many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks) saw no conflict between their ideals of what we would consider "straight" sexuality and homosexual relationships. And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. Someone living in Biblical times probably wouldn't have any concept of someone being "straight" or "gay," just of someone following cultural norms or violating cultural taboos. So to say the Bible condemns homosexuality is a misappropriation of the intent of the text outside of the cultural and temporal context to which it was intended to apply.
    - fenwick67 8y ago
      > it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. There is a very convenient Christian doctrine where there are "three types of law in the Bible", which explains that some rules are meant for Israelites and some are meant for everyone (and you [or the church] basically get to guess which apply to you).
solidsnack9000 8y ago
This seems to be conceding ground that shouldn't be given, though. One of the underlying principles of liberal government is that the government needs to justify any and all restrictions placed on the people. The mirror image of this, is that people don't need any particular reason for doing something.

veryworried 8y ago

It must never be seen as a choice. The answer to all those questions can easily be yes. Society regularly denies people the ability to do things that they feel should be their choice, and it is considered acceptable in some cases that the only recourse for those people should just be to make another choice. The power of choice invites judgement. The homosexual community has a strong distaste for bisexuals because their existence undermines the argument that no one chooses to be homosexual. Your friend should not repeat that argument in a debate again.

krapp 8y ago
>The homosexual community has a strong distaste for bisexuals because their existence undermines the argument that no one chooses to be homosexual. No they don't, and no it doesn't. Bisexuals aren't people who "choose" to be gay one minute and "choose" to be straight the next. Rather, they are attracted to both genders, just as homosexuals are attracted to the same gender, and heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite gender.

solidsnack9000 8y ago

There is a great talk by Sonu Bedi of Dartmouth on this theme: https://youtu.be/PqTYSy_vuRQ https://youtu.be/PqTYSy_vuRQ He argues for gay marriage and the right to an abortion substantially on the basis of limited government. The existing regulations are often substantially motivated by religion, which is contrary to the establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...") -- and outside of these motivations the government has not proffered any credible reasons for regulation. In short, there is no reason for the gay community to prove anything; the government has no reason for its regulations, or at best reasons proffered in bad faith. With regards to Professor Bedi's over-arching philosophy, of focusing on reasons, I do have some reservations. In particular, I wonder how he proposes to limit government with only this focus. Just the same, in this case he argues clearly and well, that putting the onus on gay people to prove they deserve the right to marry is a strange place to start from, if we are starting from within a framework of limited government.