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