3 ms·
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"
by 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 agoEven 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 agoWell 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.