3 ms·

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 arg

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.
SimHacker 13y ago
I think that the "sexual preference is not a choice" argument should be used together hand-in-hand with the "AND it should not matter if it's a choice" argument. The fact of the matter is that homophobes are wrong on both levels, and they have to win BOTH arguments to justify their positions. May homophobes strongly believe "sexual preference is a choice" because they have first hand daily experience with choosing not to act on their own self-loathing repressed homosexual urges, so there is no way you can convince them otherwise, because they are extremely invested in homosexuality being a choice, otherwise they must confront their own homosexual tendencies. The argument that it should not matter if it's a choice or not should appeal to any true conservatives or libertarians who truly believe in freedom and don't think the government should be legislating personal choice. But those people are extremely rare, just like true Christians who have actually read the bible and believe what it says, instead of cherry picking the convenient parts and characterizing what they learned by going to Sunday School and watching animated christmas specials, and know what the dogma of their religious institutions actually dictates that they should believe. For example, many "true" Catholics will patronizingly explain to you that the idea of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood is only a metaphor, when it most certainly is NOT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsubstantiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsubstantiation The "it should not matter if sexual preference is a choice" argument allows you to question if they are a true conservative / libertarian or not, in a way that you can't get through to repressed self loathing repressed homosexuals with the "homosexuality is a choice" argument. Of course anyone who thinks they're an expert in the answer to the question of whether or not sexual preference is a choice, whose own personal opinion overrides the scientific consensus, is obviously speaking from the personal experience of choosing to suppress and not act on their own homosexual feelings, so there is no way to get through to them with that logical argument. That's why it's important to use both approaches together.

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.

SimHacker 13y ago

I think that the "sexual preference is not a choice" argument should be used together hand-in-hand with the "AND it should not matter if it's a choice" argument. The fact of the matter is that homophobes are wrong on both levels, and they have to win BOTH arguments to justify their positions. May homophobes strongly believe "sexual preference is a choice" because they have first hand daily experience with choosing not to act on their own self-loathing repressed homosexual urges, so there is no way you can convince them otherwise, because they are extremely invested in homosexuality being a choice, otherwise they must confront their own homosexual tendencies. The argument that it should not matter if it's a choice or not should appeal to any true conservatives or libertarians who truly believe in freedom and don't think the government should be legislating personal choice. But those people are extremely rare, just like true Christians who have actually read the bible and believe what it says, instead of cherry picking the convenient parts and characterizing what they learned by going to Sunday School and watching animated christmas specials, and know what the dogma of their religious institutions actually dictates that they should believe. For example, many "true" Catholics will patronizingly explain to you that the idea of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood is only a metaphor, when it most certainly is NOT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsubstantiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsubstantiation The "it should not matter if sexual preference is a choice" argument allows you to question if they are a true conservative / libertarian or not, in a way that you can't get through to repressed self loathing repressed homosexuals with the "homosexuality is a choice" argument. Of course anyone who thinks they're an expert in the answer to the question of whether or not sexual preference is a choice, whose own personal opinion overrides the scientific consensus, is obviously speaking from the personal experience of choosing to suppress and not act on their own homosexual feelings, so there is no way to get through to them with that logical argument. That's why it's important to use both approaches together.