kwigibo

(Not sure if this is more of a political discussion or whether it's been done etc. etc.)

This is partly motivated by this thread.

It saddens me that, because of the social climate in which the debate about homosexual rights takes place, defenders of said rights have to tailor their arguments about what dictates sexuality to fit the terms of their opponents. It comes down to whether homosexuality is a choice, and denying that it is, so that the 'moral majority' et al cannot call it sinful.

But, do all of us who support equal rights really believe that you can be born homosexual? I don't, but I don't believe you can be born heterosexual either. I don't think either definition is actually valid. You choose how to exercise your sexuality (in a perfect world, obviously there's rape, diminished perception to deal with), and as an atheist I certainly don't believe there's a right or wrong choice.

How I define sexual preference and sexuality is probably beside the point, I'm sure we all have different opinions. But what I hate to see is people rigidly defining sexuality as something definite and unchangable when there is no other reason to do so. I agree with their intent, but not with their justification. I could live with it if it was just a ruse to convince enough people in order to alter the legal system accordingly, but so many advocates seem to genuinely believe it.

I feel it's much more reasonable to defend equal rights simply because all opposition is based on emotional pleas to completely subjective moral guides. I know in a lot of places it's practically impossible to win the debate that way, but I think the alternative does just as much damage, for being dismissive of scientific and sociological observations on the matter, and for undoubtedly perpetuating ideas that those who willingly engage in homosexual sex are somehow defective or 'different'.

I know it's trite to preach inclusivity, but I don't believe there are any innate differences between individuals of our species in the area of sexuality.




(I hope this makes sense, I've been having trouble stringing coherent thoughts together lately. I also hope no one takes this as any form of support for the religious argument, I'm more displeased than anyone that I agree with them on any point. Although I'm not sure you could take it that way)

Tom Sawyer

So, when you say that homosexuality is not a choice, do you mean that all the gay people just woke up one day and decided that they'd be gay? They decided that all the oppression and negative feelings that people have towards homosexuals and the difficulties of living that lifestyle, especially in conservative areas, would be fun so they just figured they'd try out being gay?

Or do you think that they found out that they actually were gay and the choice that they made was to accept how they are? Granted, we don't know all of the causative factors behind what makes one person gay and another straight, but that doesn't mean that that they "chose" to be gay or straight.

The reason that defenders of homosexual rights say that it isn't a choice isn't to defeat an argument from those who are against them, but because there is no reason to believe that it is a choice. Sure, there are some people who are curious and want to try it out, but that isn't in any way indicitive of the homosexual population as a whole, who simply came to the realization that this is the way that they are. Whether this is due to the way they were born, something that happened when they were young, or a combination of other factors, it all comes down to the fact that in the vast majority of cases homosexuals did not make a conscious choice to be homosexual. This is why it's not a moral issue of choice, not because gay rights proponents are making up an argument to try and win the debate.

The AntiChris

I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're trying to say here.

If the morality of homosexuality is not dependent on whether or not it is a choice, then why do so many people persistently use the "it's not a choice" argument when defending the morality of homosexual activity?

Chris

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, it is illogical to use the 'it is not a choice' argument to defend the morality of homosexuality.

What if we were to discover that a disposition to rape, for example, was the result of some hormonal surge during fetal development that structures the brain in such a way that the individual values rape.

Would this make rape a permissible activity?

Of course it wouldn't.

So, why is the 'choice' argument so popular?

To answer this question, let us look at the role that 'choice' plays in the logic of morality. Choice is used as a defense from blameworthyness in an act that is otherwise assumed to be immoral.

So, a driver accelerates through a stop sign and kills a flock of school children that were crossing the street. There is an immediate (and justified) assumption here that this should not have happened. The driver of the car, however, can deflect blameworthiness if he can show, "It wasn't my fault." That is to say, some defect in the car caused the car to accelerate in spite of any reasonable precautions that the driver could have taken. The driver. thereby, is free of blame for having been the driver of a car that happened to slaughter a pack of kids.

However, the 'choice' argument does require the presumption that whatever happened was wrong, and that if the individual had a choice, they would have and should have taken steps to make sure that the event did not happen.

Those who use the 'choice' argument with respect to homosexuality are accepting the argument that there is something wrong with being gay, but are attempting to cast aside blameworthyness by saying that this was not a matter of choice.

Why do people use it? Because people, by and large, crave acceptance. They want the love of their family and of the people they admire. They hear the condemnation of homosexuality and they do not wish to be a person that others condemn. Yet, they find out that they cannot change. So, they cry out in defense, "It's not my fault." These are people who, if they had not been gay themselves, would have probably joined the chorus against homosexuality as a way of purchasing the acceptance they need.

This is not to be taken as condemnation of those who find the 'choice' argument important -- they have internalized society's condemnation of what they are. It is testimony to the importance of acceptance and the power of internalizing condemnation. Teenage homosexuals make up 30% of teenage suicides. The cry, "it's not my fault," clearly fits into this. The teenager may not have a choice as to whether or not he is gay, but does have a choice as to whether or not he lives. A society that can drive so many people to suicide can easily drive many more than this to pleading, 'It's not my fault."

The choice argument is a poor argument. Ultimately, it has the potential of being disasterous. All that is required is the discovery of a medical procedure -- no matter how expensive or how traumatic on the individual -- that can actually 'cure' homosexuality, and those who use the 'choice' argument will find themselves on quicksand -- painted into a corner that they, themselves, helped build.

The fact is, there is nothing wrong with choosing to become involved in a homosexual relationship. There is nothing wrong with choosing this lifestyle because the lifestyle does no harm to anybody else -- just s there is no wrong in choosing to become a firefighter or a computer programmer.

The AntiChris

I agree completely.

However, it never ceases to amaze me how often this argument is seen on these boards.

Chris

Tom Sawyer

What I'm trying to say is that I don't see homosexuality as a moral issue at all. Since there's no choice involved in being homosexual, then it's not an issue of right or wrong at all. When people say that gay people are immoral, my argument against them isn't that I think gay people are moral by being gay, but instead that they are not being either moral or immoral, but simply being themselves, the same way that a Puerto Rican is being neither moral nor immoral by being from Puerto Rico. Since there's not an issue of choice involved, it is not a moral issue at all, which is why those who label homosexuality as immoral are wrong.

Where choice does come into it is with respect to engaging in homosexual activity and this is where issues of morality can come into play, rather than with the morality of being homosexual. Personally, I see nothing immoral about homosexual activity either, since no one is harmed by it, as they are in Alonzo Fyfe's rape example. Again, I see it as something that is neither moral nor immoral since there is nothing "wrong" happening either way.

So whether you're talking about being homosexual or engaging in homosexual activity, the issue of morality doesn't apply. Where it does apply is with people who try to impose their own standards on others and say that they are wrong to do something that causes no harm and is natural to the people doing it. Those people are being immoral and the moral argument against them involves saying that the moral choice is to let people live their lives as they choose as long as no one gets hurt, to which the issue of homosexuality is tangentally related.

kwigibo

Personally, I don't make a distinction. Do you believe there is some biological abnormality that dictates gay or straight? I think you can only define sexuality by the sex act itself, and as a logical extension, there is no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality. There are no fundamental differences in sexuality in humans, or anything else. Any healthy person is inherently sexual, how they choose to go about sex is irrelevant.

Of course, unless you can convince everybody that sex is not a moral issue, none of this has any bearing on the debate, and that's what depresses me the most.

(When I refer to sex I mean sex between consenting adults of course)

blt to go

Another dimension of claiming that homosexuality is not a choice is to give it protection of equal rights.

As Americans, we enact laws to keep people from discriminating against persons for characteristics they cannot change. - Age, race, sex, height, weight. If homosexuality is a choice it should not be protected.

The problem with that argument (and oft-ignored by the right-wingers) is that we also protect "rights" that ARE choosen -- particularily marital status and religion! The very same people that have the right to make statements because the protection granted to them as to their chosen religion, are claiming that since homosexuality is a "choice" not something you are born with, you are not entitled to equal protection.

As to the morality issue, I too would have to chime in that simply stating it is not a choice is not a defense for its morality.

Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that pedophilia is not a choice either. If a person has that switch in their brain towards that attraction, they will always have that attraction. There is no cure. I absolutely, positively WILL NOT accept pedophilia as morally correct simply because that person has no choice.

Tom Sawyer

Being gay or straight is no more of a biological abnormality than being white or black; it's a biological difference. If you don't define race by the colour of someone's skin, then there's no difference between being white or black, either. I think that sexuality is defined by more than just the actual act of sex, but also by such things as who the person wants to have sex with, finds attractive, etc. If you think that sexuality is defined soley by the act of sex, do you think there can be any homosexual virgins? Or are people who've never had sex not heterosexual? What if they've only gotten to second base, what does that make them?

There are fundamental differences in sexuality between people. Recognizing that there are differences, though, does mean mean seeing one option as better or worse than another. Some people think that the sole purpose of sex is for reproduction and others like to be tied up and whipped by strangers - that's a fundamental difference. It doesn't matter what causes that difference and I don't think a moral issue applies in either case. The moral issue comes about when a person tries to force his or her sense of what is right onto another. If the prude tries to arrest the S&Mer for wanting to be tied up and whipped or if the S&Mer tries to tie up and whip the prude, both are making an immoral choice. If they just do what they want to do and don't hurt anybody (who doesn't ask for it beforehand), they are not being either moral or immoral and the issue is irrelevant.

This is the main problem. Those who think that sex is a moral issue are trying to force their sense of morality onto others who disagree with that. While there is often good reason to do this, such as when somebody's sense of morality says that it's OK to rape small children, when dealing with an act that causes no harm and everyone consents to, then trying to force others to conform to what you want is immoral.

bit to go,

That's a really good point.

The difference is that homosexuals are adults who are both able to make the choice. Children cannot make the choice, so the pedophile makes it for them, meaning the kid does not consent to the action, which is why pedophilia is immoral and homosexuality is amoral.

Schizophrenic serial killers also don't have a choice, since a switch in their brains tells them to kill people. I still don't support their right to do what comes naturally to them, though, simply because they can't control how they feel. Their free choice to want to kill people conflicts with other people's free choice to not be killed and they are therefore overriding someone else's choices to pursue their own, which is why it is wrong. It's the same thing with pedophiles.

Matrioshka_Brain

Claiming homosexuality is ok because it's not a choice is a naturalistic fallicy.

It, and consentual homosexual relationships are ethically acceptable because no one is being hurt by someone else's state of being (homosexuality) and consentual relationships, one way or the other. No physical harm, theft, slander, trauma, or unconsentual anything.

------------------------------

I agree with Alanzo, it's more of a "it's not my fault" thing - to keep people from ridiculing or octricizing. And indeed, one's sexual preferences are not their fault or doing (from what I've observed thus far).

It is also a sort of counter-argument to the common conservative Xtian "homosexuality is not natural," where "not natural" is defined to be bad. I think people just take it too far sometimes.

It's not really relevant to the issue.