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.
![[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 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