I have one problem with the statement "homosexuality is not a choice", or perhaps how it's often used. It feels to me like conceding ground to even answer a question that shouldn't be asked. Why does homosexuality need to be ineveitble to be acceptable? And for those of us who are bisexual and can be seen in light of this question as being able to 'choose' -- why should it even be under discussion?
I think homosexuality should be conceptualized as a neutral quality in and of itself, deserving of toleration and undeserving of oppression, not as a negative quality that can't be helped and so there's no point trying to change it.
*rereads* I hope this is clear, as I have to dash. *laugh at myself*
Why does homosexuality need to be ineveitble to be acceptable? And for those of us who are bisexual and can be seen in light of this question as being able to 'choose' -- why should it even be under discussion?
Old argument - at least as old as the reformation: are we defined by what we do, or by internal traits which may not be expressed or visible.
Since your position on this is inconsistent, and since the inconsistencies don't conform to any known algorithm (or at least not any algorithm that I know about) your argument is categorized as biased.
Your making it not because it proceeds logically from your beliefs, but because you have a personal bias in support of homosexuality.
Moreover, it only works (logically) if you presume an axiom that homosexuality is an internal trait; while that may be a common understanding within our linguistic community, it is far from universal or self-evident.
If it was people saying, "Homosexuality is a choice," wouldn't exist.
In my opinion: we do not have a choice about what we feel, but we do have a choice about what we do about it. Many of our rights are based on the limits that can, and should not be, placed on what we do about what we feel. In other words, I have the right to express my anger, but not to express it by physically attacking you (unless, for example, I'm responding to a physical attack from you, in which case I have the right to defend myself); likewise, I have the right to express my sexual desire, but not by fucking someone who doesn't, or can't, consent.
It's entirely appropriate to have a discussion / argument about whether gender is an justifiable reason to limit the expression of sexual desire; while I share your position in that debate, I'm less inclined to use tactics designed to make fun of (humiliate) my opponents.... but then, I'm not a great fan of humiliation.
I could also say a great deal more about the right(s) to express ones feelings, but I've promised not to go there with you for several months, so I won't
Since he was quoting me, I think I can jump in here. The statement "If you have to choose to be heterosexual every morning, you're probably not" definitely proceeds from my beliefs, specifically the belief that if, every morning, I had to make a conscious choice not to suck any dick that day, I would not be 100% het.
"it only works (logically) if you presume an axiom that homosexuality is an internal trait; while that may be a common understanding within our linguistic community, it is far from universal or self-evident" is a non-argument. No understanding is unversal; you can always find some bozo willing to argue that up is down or freedom is slavery. The best we can get is a meaning that is generally accepted. Merriam-Webster is as close to an objective definition as we're going to get, and the first line of their definition of "homosexual" is "1: : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." Note the word "desire." By your own arguments, desire is separate from action.
And finally, "I'm less inclined to use tactics designed to make fun of (humiliate) my opponents." There's this odd belief that's sprung up that conservatives can say whatever they please, but if liberals point out that it's factually incorrect, morally represensible, or just stupid, we're being mean. Well, sod that for a game of soldiers. If someone doesn't want to be called a fool, they shouldn't say fooling things in public.
This is especially true when these words have effects in the real world. The statement "homosexuality is a choice" is used to try to prevent people from marrying, to urge them into marriages with others they can never love, and to encourage them to blame themselves for who they're drawn to. If you're going to do that, mockery is the least you deserve.
There are two or three versions of that one, of course. There are the people who think bisexuals should choose to have only other-sex partners. And some of the people who think that seem to not really believe in bisexuality: if I can choose an other-sex partner, why can't everyone who identifies as lesbian or gay do the same? (Obvious to me answer: because they're only attracted to people of their own gender.)
Other people who talk about sexual orientation as a choice seem to not really believe in heterosexuality, and think that if they can force themselves to live heterosexually despite temptation, everyone else can and should too.
But even if it was entirely a choice, I do not concede that my choices in this are any of their business, any more than I claim the right to tell them that they are married to the wrong person, and must divorce at once.
Before I go on, let me clarify something. I'm actively bisexual and polyamorous, with both male and female partners. So I support the acceptance of homosexual behavior by society.
My comments had more to do with the nature of civilized debate.
-------
To be fair, the argument that I made against xiphias [that he was being logically inconsistent when making this statement, and that the act was therefore a function of bias] could be made against many of the people who claim homosexuality is a choice: those of them who profess to belong to protestant faiths are following a belief system based on the theology that salvation (e.g. the state of moral goodness) is based on faith, an internal motivation, rather than good works, an external behavior / choice. So that argument is equally inconsistent, and equally a function of bias.
-------
With regards to how 'universal' the belief in homosexuality as an internal trait is...
I should, perhaps, have said "within epsilon of universal"... "within epsilon" is family jargon for close enough to be treated as equivalent, even when there exists some (small) discrepancy between practical fact and theoretical ideal.
The dictionary definition *is* a pretty convincing argument that this particular assumption *is* "within epsilon" of universal.
I'd make the following counter-argument: English is a living language. The meme that "Homosexuality is a choice" is and attempt to contest cultural norms, specifically the one that defines homosexuality in terms of desire rather than action.
As I said, I'm actively bisexual and polyamorous, with both male and female partners. So I support the acceptance of homosexual behavior by society.
I don't, personally, want to be punished for my sexual choices... however if I *were* going to be punished, I would rather be punished because I *have* slept with another woman than because I desired to... so I support the idea that homosexuality should judged by acts rather than as an internal trait, even if it means accepting the meme that homosexuality is a choice.
I believe that the case for accepting homosexuality should be made based on the argument that forcing the repression of homosexual desires does more harm to individuals and society than accepting homosexual behavior as part of the social norm.
And, yes, on the fact that the existence of those desires is no more a choice than any other feeling, and, additionally, a known and verified part of human potential... but I prefer that the distinction between feeling and action be maintained, rather than seeing the two conflated.
-------
I said I'm "less inclined to use tactics designed to make fun of (humiliate) my opponents." I hope in doing so I made it clear that this is a personal preference, though a strongly held one.
I consider emotional damage to be equivalent to physical damage, and mockery - an emotional attack - to be equivalent to a physical one. If, by the standards of civilized debate, it would be considered wrong to physically attack my opponent, then it would likewise be wrong to mock them.
I understand, however, that not everyone agrees with me on this, nor holds themselves to these standards, nor holds others engaged in civilized debate to these standards.
"if you have to CHOOSE to be straight your queer" is a joke made at the expense of those who argue that homosexuality is a choice.
As these things go, it's very mild... I'm far more sensitive to the misuse of humor than the non-acceptance of homosexuality. I'm also clearly outside the norm (I would argue farther outside the norm for this than for being homosexual, though I offend fewer people for it).
Darn it, I was hoping for a good snarkfest, but now you've got me to think...
OK, first off, "salvation through faith alone" is more complex than it sounds. When Luther first spoke up for this doctrine, "good works" was commonly understood to mean "gifts to the church." You weren't supposed to do good works yourself; you were supposed to finance the Church, whose workings were good by definition. When Luther argued against salvation through good works, he was saying that you could not buy your way into Heaven.
Even the most fundamentalist protestants today believe that your faith is shown through your deeds. If you, say, go out dancing and then play D&D, your faith is suspect.
I'd make the following counter-argument: English is a living language. The meme that "Homosexuality is a choice" is and attempt to contest cultural norms, specifically the one that defines homosexuality in terms of desire rather than action.
Nope. The groups who claim to be able to cure homosexuality say they can cure you of the desire. This is somewhat logical, as just preventing homosexual acts would conflict with fundamentalis Christian theology, that holds the desire to sin to be a sin itself.
so I support the idea that homosexuality should judged by acts rather than as an internal trait, even if it means accepting the meme that homosexuality is a choice.
Interesting. What about bisexual women in monogamous relationships? I know a bunch of those. Are they no longer bisexual if they're only with one gender?
Or if action makes you bisexual, I also know a bunch of women who've fooled around with one or two women, and decided it wasn't for them. (I probably also know guys who've done the same sort of experiementation, but they don't talk about it.) Calling them bisexual doesn't seem accurate.
I consider emotional damage to be equivalent to physical damage
I admire this stance, I don't find it practical. There are too many people who are hurt emotionally if anyone disagrees with them. If you bring up facts that contradict what they've been saying, you're being elitist. How dare you say that your opinion is better than theirs, just because the facts are on your side!
The topic under discussion is another good example. It's not hard to find people who are emotionally hurt by the sight of two men kissing. By being actively bisexual and polyamorous and happy, you are wounding these folks more deeply than anything I could say.
For one thing, it means there is no logical basis for a counter-argument to the statement that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore could be morally wrong; whether homosexuallity is an interal or external trait ceases to be relevant.
If you have to CHOOSE to write right-handed -- or if you have the "choice" forced on you, usually in childhood -- you're a leftie. And... so what? (Besides the established harm of forcing that "choice".
There's a challenge put out by Dan Savage, of Savage Love fame, regarding that very claim, that homosexuality is a choice.
Basically, Dan challenges any straight man who's convinced that being homosexual is a conscious, deliberate choice to blow him, whilst the head-giver maintains a diamond-hard erection of his own. Basically, prove it by 'choosing' to be homosexual for fifteen minutes, and then going back to his utterly straight 'chosen' orientation.
Honestly, I don't see how it proves anything, except that the head-giver is loads more queer than he thinks. *shrug* Also, that Dan Savage is just like every other man out there, gay, straight, or other: he really likes getting head. Heh.
There's a fallacy inherent in Mr Savage's proposed demonstration, in that it assumes that any gay man (temporary or otherwise) will be thoroughly aroused by the act of giving Dan Savage head...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 12:55 pm (UTC)I think homosexuality should be conceptualized as a neutral quality in and of itself, deserving of toleration and undeserving of oppression, not as a negative quality that can't be helped and so there's no point trying to change it.
*rereads* I hope this is clear, as I have to dash. *laugh at myself*
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 02:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 06:26 pm (UTC)YES, THIS TOO. That's a GREAT observation.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-15 12:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 02:38 pm (UTC)Since your position on this is inconsistent, and since the inconsistencies don't conform to any known algorithm (or at least not any algorithm that I know about) your argument is categorized as biased.
Your making it not because it proceeds logically from your beliefs, but because you have a personal bias in support of homosexuality.
Moreover, it only works (logically) if you presume an axiom that homosexuality is an internal trait; while that may be a common understanding within our linguistic community, it is far from universal or self-evident.
If it was people saying, "Homosexuality is a choice," wouldn't exist.
In my opinion: we do not have a choice about what we feel, but we do have a choice about what we do about it. Many of our rights are based on the limits that can, and should not be, placed on what we do about what we feel. In other words, I have the right to express my anger, but not to express it by physically attacking you (unless, for example, I'm responding to a physical attack from you, in which case I have the right to defend myself); likewise, I have the right to express my sexual desire, but not by fucking someone who doesn't, or can't, consent.
It's entirely appropriate to have a discussion / argument about whether gender is an justifiable reason to limit the expression of sexual desire; while I share your position in that debate, I'm less inclined to use tactics designed to make fun of (humiliate) my opponents.... but then, I'm not a great fan of humiliation.
I could also say a great deal more about the right(s) to express ones feelings, but I've promised not to go there with you for several months, so I won't
Kiralee
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 04:05 pm (UTC)"it only works (logically) if you presume an axiom that homosexuality is an internal trait; while that may be a common understanding within our linguistic community, it is far from universal or self-evident" is a non-argument. No understanding is unversal; you can always find some bozo willing to argue that up is down or freedom is slavery. The best we can get is a meaning that is generally accepted. Merriam-Webster is as close to an objective definition as we're going to get, and the first line of their definition of "homosexual" is "1: : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." Note the word "desire." By your own arguments, desire is separate from action.
And finally, "I'm less inclined to use tactics designed to make fun of (humiliate) my opponents." There's this odd belief that's sprung up that conservatives can say whatever they please, but if liberals point out that it's factually incorrect, morally represensible, or just stupid, we're being mean. Well, sod that for a game of soldiers. If someone doesn't want to be called a fool, they shouldn't say fooling things in public.
This is especially true when these words have effects in the real world. The statement "homosexuality is a choice" is used to try to prevent people from marrying, to urge them into marriages with others they can never love, and to encourage them to blame themselves for who they're drawn to. If you're going to do that, mockery is the least you deserve.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 04:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 04:40 pm (UTC)Other people who talk about sexual orientation as a choice seem to not really believe in heterosexuality, and think that if they can force themselves to live heterosexually despite temptation, everyone else can and should too.
But even if it was entirely a choice, I do not concede that my choices in this are any of their business, any more than I claim the right to tell them that they are married to the wrong person, and must divorce at once.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 10:11 pm (UTC)Before I go on, let me clarify something. I'm actively bisexual and polyamorous, with both male and female partners. So I support the acceptance of homosexual behavior by society.
My comments had more to do with the nature of civilized debate.
-------
To be fair, the argument that I made against
-------
With regards to how 'universal' the belief in homosexuality as an internal trait is...
I should, perhaps, have said "within epsilon of universal"... "within epsilon" is family jargon for close enough to be treated as equivalent, even when there exists some (small) discrepancy between practical fact and theoretical ideal.
The dictionary definition *is* a pretty convincing argument that this particular assumption *is* "within epsilon" of universal.
I'd make the following counter-argument: English is a living language. The meme that "Homosexuality is a choice" is and attempt to contest cultural norms, specifically the one that defines homosexuality in terms of desire rather than action.
As I said, I'm actively bisexual and polyamorous, with both male and female partners. So I support the acceptance of homosexual behavior by society.
I don't, personally, want to be punished for my sexual choices... however if I *were* going to be punished, I would rather be punished because I *have* slept with another woman than because I desired to... so I support the idea that homosexuality should judged by acts rather than as an internal trait, even if it means accepting the meme that homosexuality is a choice.
I believe that the case for accepting homosexuality should be made based on the argument that forcing the repression of homosexual desires does more harm to individuals and society than accepting homosexual behavior as part of the social norm.
And, yes, on the fact that the existence of those desires is no more a choice than any other feeling, and, additionally, a known and verified part of human potential... but I prefer that the distinction between feeling and action be maintained, rather than seeing the two conflated.
-------
I said I'm "less inclined to use tactics designed to make fun of (humiliate) my opponents." I hope in doing so I made it clear that this is a personal preference, though a strongly held one.
I consider emotional damage to be equivalent to physical damage, and mockery - an emotional attack - to be equivalent to a physical one. If, by the standards of civilized debate, it would be considered wrong to physically attack my opponent, then it would likewise be wrong to mock them.
I understand, however, that not everyone agrees with me on this, nor holds themselves to these standards, nor holds others engaged in civilized debate to these standards.
Kiralee
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 01:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 10:26 am (UTC)As these things go, it's very mild... I'm far more sensitive to the misuse of humor than the non-acceptance of homosexuality. I'm also clearly outside the norm (I would argue farther outside the norm for this than for being homosexual, though I offend fewer people for it).
Kiralee
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 02:41 pm (UTC)OK, first off, "salvation through faith alone" is more complex than it sounds. When Luther first spoke up for this doctrine, "good works" was commonly understood to mean "gifts to the church." You weren't supposed to do good works yourself; you were supposed to finance the Church, whose workings were good by definition. When Luther argued against salvation through good works, he was saying that you could not buy your way into Heaven.
Even the most fundamentalist protestants today believe that your faith is shown through your deeds. If you, say, go out dancing and then play D&D, your faith is suspect.
I'd make the following counter-argument: English is a living language. The meme that "Homosexuality is a choice" is and attempt to contest cultural norms, specifically the one that defines homosexuality in terms of desire rather than action.
Nope. The groups who claim to be able to cure homosexuality say they can cure you of the desire. This is somewhat logical, as just preventing homosexual acts would conflict with fundamentalis Christian theology, that holds the desire to sin to be a sin itself.
so I support the idea that homosexuality should judged by acts rather than as an internal trait, even if it means accepting the meme that homosexuality is a choice.
Interesting. What about bisexual women in monogamous relationships? I know a bunch of those. Are they no longer bisexual if they're only with one gender?
Or if action makes you bisexual, I also know a bunch of women who've fooled around with one or two women, and decided it wasn't for them. (I probably also know guys who've done the same sort of experiementation, but they don't talk about it.) Calling them bisexual doesn't seem accurate.
I consider emotional damage to be equivalent to physical damage
I admire this stance, I don't find it practical. There are too many people who are hurt emotionally if anyone disagrees with them. If you bring up facts that contradict what they've been saying, you're being elitist. How dare you say that your opinion is better than theirs, just because the facts are on your side!
The topic under discussion is another good example. It's not hard to find people who are emotionally hurt by the sight of two men kissing. By being actively bisexual and polyamorous and happy, you are wounding these folks more deeply than anything I could say.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-15 10:27 am (UTC)Kiralee
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 04:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 07:33 pm (UTC)In my opinion: we do not have a choice about what we feel
this may be your opinion, but brain research says otherwise - see Jill Bolte Taylor's book "My Stroke of Insight" among others.
I do agree, however, that we have a choice about our actions and how we respond to situations.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-15 01:24 pm (UTC)I'm not sure I want to live in that (this) world.
For one thing, it means there is no logical basis for a counter-argument to the statement that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore could be morally wrong; whether homosexuallity is an interal or external trait ceases to be relevant.
I'll have to think about what to do about this.
Kiralee
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 03:53 pm (UTC)If you have to CHOOSE to write right-handed -- or if you have the "choice" forced on you, usually in childhood -- you're a leftie. And... so what? (Besides the established harm of forcing that "choice".
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 03:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 06:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-13 11:43 pm (UTC)Basically, Dan challenges any straight man who's convinced that being homosexual is a conscious, deliberate choice to blow him, whilst the head-giver maintains a diamond-hard erection of his own. Basically, prove it by 'choosing' to be homosexual for fifteen minutes, and then going back to his utterly straight 'chosen' orientation.
Honestly, I don't see how it proves anything, except that the head-giver is loads more queer than he thinks. *shrug* Also, that Dan Savage is just like every other man out there, gay, straight, or other: he really likes getting head. Heh.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-07-14 03:52 am (UTC)Still, can't blame a guy for trying.