5 ms·

I think considering the question of "is it a choice?" relevant is almost as bad as believing homosexuality is somehow wrong either way. Why should it matter? W

I think considering the question of "is it a choice?" relevant is almost as bad as believing homosexuality is somehow wrong either way. Why should it matter? Was I born a programmer or did I choose to become one? I was born physically (to satisfy the gender-sensitive) male. I was born human. I was born with blue eyes. Beyond the physically obvious, if you're OK with persecuting people for a choice that does not affect you (e.g. "that guy is a blue-eyed human, and that's fine, but he CHOSE to be a PROGRAMMER, and that's just wrong!"), then you are making things worse. "It's not a choice" doesn't make it more or less right or wrong. It's how people are. The failure to accept that (or at least ignore and tolerate it) is the problem, and it will not be answered by "well it's genetic." [edit: Full disclosure: This post was made while listening to Queen, but I didn't CHOOSE to do that, the restaurant did that to me; please judge appropriately.]

gizmo686 13y ago
I never chose to become a programmer, but I am not going to argue that I was born that way. During my development, through environmental factors that no one was specifically controlling to make me a programmer, I naturally grew into being a programmer with no one ever making that choice.
babarock 13y ago
Yes, a thousand times yes. Whether it's a choice or not should be irrelevant. However, used as it is in the modern political context of "gay harassment issues", I believe we're actually doing a great disservice to the gay community by using "they didn't have the choice" as an excuse. Maybe it's just me, but every time someone argues that we should accept gay people because they didn't have a choice, I can't stop myself thinking: "So if they had a choice, would it be okay to harass them? Would it be okay to ask them to change?". The problem is not that gay people can't _change_. The problem is that it's f*cking wrong to ask them to change. Even if they could _change_ (whatever people mean by that), it's absolutely nonsensical to ask them to. As a society, we ask murderers to change, criminals, people generally harmful to others. But gays? Since when is it okay to criticize the choice of someone that affects nobody but this someone? I like pizza. If that bothers anyone, should I just say: "There's nothing I can do about it, I was born this way?"
- tommorris 13y ago
  Even if I could change, I wouldn't want to. If you gave me a pill to turn straight, I wouldn't take it. I like being gay and wouldn't change it. That's why we have fucking great big parades and talk about 'pride' and all that. That other people are assholes and bigots ain't my damn problem.
- icambron 13y ago
  Well said. The not-a-choice argument has always bothered me for exactly these reasons. I'll also point out that it's utterly unconvincing on the sufficiency front, too. Pedophilia isn't a choice either, but that doesn't make acting on it OK. "But dude, having sex with kids is heinous, but gay sex is a private act between consenting adults." Exactly. That's why homophobia is repugnant. Nothing to do with choice.
chris_mahan 13y ago
The restaurant plays Queen? Where is it?
sdoowpilihp 13y ago
This reminds me of a bit of old time wisdom that seems applicable here. It goes something along the lines of "If it doesn't spook the cows, leave it be."
nitrogen 13y ago
"It's not a choice" doesn't make it more or less right or wrong. It's how people are. The failure to accept that (or at least ignore and tolerate it) is the problem, and it will not be answered by "well it's genetic." This is true, but "it's not a choice" is a stepping stone to more general acceptance.
dandelany 13y ago
It's relevant because if homosexuality is not a choice, we can prune off an entire subtree of reasoning which (although I disagree with it) could be used to argue that homosexuality should be regulated. You're certainly correct that it's wrong to persecute anyone for making a choice that does not affect others. However, people who believe homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong tend to also believe that it somehow does affect them in an indirect way - that it means fewer children will be raised in a good home, or that it contributes to a decline in civilized society or something. Remember that we also regulate other things that affect us in indirect ways, eg. hard drug use and sales, prostitution, etc. so it is not out of the question to regulate a choice that has indirect negative effects on society. Now we could (and I have) argued with such people until the cows came home about whether or not this is truly the case, but if we establish that it is not a choice, we can sidestep this argument entirely. Because if it's not a choice, it's a physical trait, like race or height. And we have established pretty well as a nation that we definitely cannot legally regulate people's behavior based on their physical traits, even if it does affect us. For example, think of the Americans with Disabilities Act - having to put in wheelchair ramps directly affects the owner of the building negatively (she has to pay for the ramps). However, we don't question this law because being physically disabled isn't a choice. TL;DR I agree with you that even if it were a choice, it is not one that affects me and therefore cannot be regulated. But if we can get more people to understand that it is not a choice, we can skip the entire debate about whether or not it's a choice that affects others and just treat each other equally under the law.
- tommorris 13y ago
  There's another reason why though it ought not to matter whether being gay is a choice, it does matter to assert that it isn't. That it isn't a choice isn't a knockdown argument for it being okay... but understanding that it isn't a choice is important because unless we have strong evidence to the contrary, we should actually give some consideration to the real-life experience of actual gay people. (I know, radical suggestion. What possible benefit could listening to actual real-life experience bring to this discussion? Debates about whether or not I ought to have equal rights are so much more enjoyable when they are about the interpretation of passages of ancient books I don't believe in.) Memories are volatile, sure. But I never thought during my youth "yeah, you know what, I'd rather be in a persecuted minority and be made fun of by my peers, that sounds like an absolute blast, sign me up". If it were a choice, it wouldn't have taken so fucking long to come to terms with it. If it were a choice, my teenage years would have been quite different than they were. The "it's a choice" thing requires a pathologising or criminalising—or just stupefying—explanation for the cause of that choice. Pathologising was the usual way: we're mentally ill, therefore we chose to be gay. Then there was the criminalising: we were "recruited" into the "gay lifestyle" by some devious gay elder to boost numbers, a sort of queer pyramid scheme where if you recruit 50 newbies to the gang, you get a new car. Or, as I said, stupefying: the idea that teenage boys would willingly subject themselves to the humiliating taunts of their peers for being gay in a small micro-society (schools) that aren't big fans of people being gay.

gizmo686 13y ago

I never chose to become a programmer, but I am not going to argue that I was born that way. During my development, through environmental factors that no one was specifically controlling to make me a programmer, I naturally grew into being a programmer with no one ever making that choice.

babarock 13y ago

Yes, a thousand times yes. Whether it's a choice or not should be irrelevant. However, used as it is in the modern political context of "gay harassment issues", I believe we're actually doing a great disservice to the gay community by using "they didn't have the choice" as an excuse. Maybe it's just me, but every time someone argues that we should accept gay people because they didn't have a choice, I can't stop myself thinking: "So if they had a choice, would it be okay to harass them? Would it be okay to ask them to change?". The problem is not that gay people can't _change_. The problem is that it's f*cking wrong to ask them to change. Even if they could _change_ (whatever people mean by that), it's absolutely nonsensical to ask them to. As a society, we ask murderers to change, criminals, people generally harmful to others. But gays? Since when is it okay to criticize the choice of someone that affects nobody but this someone? I like pizza. If that bothers anyone, should I just say: "There's nothing I can do about it, I was born this way?"

tommorris 13y ago
Even if I could change, I wouldn't want to. If you gave me a pill to turn straight, I wouldn't take it. I like being gay and wouldn't change it. That's why we have fucking great big parades and talk about 'pride' and all that. That other people are assholes and bigots ain't my damn problem.
icambron 13y ago
Well said. The not-a-choice argument has always bothered me for exactly these reasons. I'll also point out that it's utterly unconvincing on the sufficiency front, too. Pedophilia isn't a choice either, but that doesn't make acting on it OK. "But dude, having sex with kids is heinous, but gay sex is a private act between consenting adults." Exactly. That's why homophobia is repugnant. Nothing to do with choice.

chris_mahan 13y ago

The restaurant plays Queen? Where is it?

sdoowpilihp 13y ago

This reminds me of a bit of old time wisdom that seems applicable here. It goes something along the lines of "If it doesn't spook the cows, leave it be."

nitrogen 13y ago

"It's not a choice" doesn't make it more or less right or wrong. It's how people are. The failure to accept that (or at least ignore and tolerate it) is the problem, and it will not be answered by "well it's genetic." This is true, but "it's not a choice" is a stepping stone to more general acceptance.

dandelany 13y ago

It's relevant because if homosexuality is not a choice, we can prune off an entire subtree of reasoning which (although I disagree with it) could be used to argue that homosexuality should be regulated. You're certainly correct that it's wrong to persecute anyone for making a choice that does not affect others. However, people who believe homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong tend to also believe that it somehow does affect them in an indirect way - that it means fewer children will be raised in a good home, or that it contributes to a decline in civilized society or something. Remember that we also regulate other things that affect us in indirect ways, eg. hard drug use and sales, prostitution, etc. so it is not out of the question to regulate a choice that has indirect negative effects on society. Now we could (and I have) argued with such people until the cows came home about whether or not this is truly the case, but if we establish that it is not a choice, we can sidestep this argument entirely. Because if it's not a choice, it's a physical trait, like race or height. And we have established pretty well as a nation that we definitely cannot legally regulate people's behavior based on their physical traits, even if it does affect us. For example, think of the Americans with Disabilities Act - having to put in wheelchair ramps directly affects the owner of the building negatively (she has to pay for the ramps). However, we don't question this law because being physically disabled isn't a choice. TL;DR I agree with you that even if it were a choice, it is not one that affects me and therefore cannot be regulated. But if we can get more people to understand that it is not a choice, we can skip the entire debate about whether or not it's a choice that affects others and just treat each other equally under the law.

tommorris 13y ago
There's another reason why though it ought not to matter whether being gay is a choice, it does matter to assert that it isn't. That it isn't a choice isn't a knockdown argument for it being okay... but understanding that it isn't a choice is important because unless we have strong evidence to the contrary, we should actually give some consideration to the real-life experience of actual gay people. (I know, radical suggestion. What possible benefit could listening to actual real-life experience bring to this discussion? Debates about whether or not I ought to have equal rights are so much more enjoyable when they are about the interpretation of passages of ancient books I don't believe in.) Memories are volatile, sure. But I never thought during my youth "yeah, you know what, I'd rather be in a persecuted minority and be made fun of by my peers, that sounds like an absolute blast, sign me up". If it were a choice, it wouldn't have taken so fucking long to come to terms with it. If it were a choice, my teenage years would have been quite different than they were. The "it's a choice" thing requires a pathologising or criminalising—or just stupefying—explanation for the cause of that choice. Pathologising was the usual way: we're mentally ill, therefore we chose to be gay. Then there was the criminalising: we were "recruited" into the "gay lifestyle" by some devious gay elder to boost numbers, a sort of queer pyramid scheme where if you recruit 50 newbies to the gang, you get a new car. Or, as I said, stupefying: the idea that teenage boys would willingly subject themselves to the humiliating taunts of their peers for being gay in a small micro-society (schools) that aren't big fans of people being gay.