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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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.