1. Homosexuality is natural and unchangeable, or the opposite.
I find this to be a terrible argument when either side use it. First of all we could point out the glaring naturalistic fallacy, i.e. just because it's natural (or not) does not means it's 'good' (or not). I don't care whether it's natural or not. To my mind an act is impermissible only if it causes harm. Homosexual behaviour cannot be shown to harm anyone outside of the people engaged in it, so there is no reason to try and prevent it.
This is something that comes up primarily because groups opposed to equal rights for homosexuals like to use "unnatural" as a buzzword for attacking gay people, even to the extent of attempting to create a legal classification without creating a legal definition. I first became aware of this while living in Oregon in 1992, when the Oregon Citizens Alliance was trying to pass statewide Ballot Measure 9, which defined homosexuals as "Abnormal, unnatural, and perverse" and would have blocked gays from qualifying for legal protection or from keeping many types of employment, such as teaching.
Arguing the "natural" angle is a
reaction. Of course "natural" does not intrinsically mean "positive"... but if the opposition is going to call gays "unnatural", it really is worth pointing out that they're 100% wrong about that.
The reason
they use it is as part of their tool set for demonstrating that homosexuality is not an orientation but a chosen array of behaviors. The thinking here is that if being gay is not a state but a behavior, not an orientation but a choice, then it cannot be eligible for legal protection. Never mind that religion is protected and religion is rather obviously a chosen set of behaviors!
Homosexuality is not unnatural in the way religious thinkers may claim, but neither is it unchangeable in the way some gay rights people may claim. I'm not saying that people should try to change their orientation (why should they?), but it is a fact that sexuality is fluid and changes over the course of your life
I think most people recognize that sexuality is fluid, but when gay people claim that orientation is unchangeable, it isn't in defiance of this understanding. It's simply a case of yet another reaction against the "choice" accusation. Which really shouldn't make a difference either way... even if being gay were a choice, why would that matter? But apparently it
does matter, at least to those who want to keep gay people from achieving equality.
Unchangeable orientation is just a way of denying the idea that gay people can simply decide to stop being gay, or that through rigorous prayer or work or introspection they can
learn to stop. I call myself homosexual not because it is political in any way... it's because I have only ever been attracted to members of my own sex.
I am the sod-off shotgun.
reply
share
colin-a-broderick
11 years ago
Thanks for the replies. To be clear, I think it's basically a positive thing that people are fighting for rights. It just makes me a little sad for the state of our civilisation that in order to do that they need to be as ignorant of the facts as the people who are popularly considered ignorant.
When I said political what I meant was that I think many people only adopt labels (of all sorts, not just sexuality) because they feel the need to belong to a group. This is understandable and generally a good thing because it enables people to be comfortable about their identity.
But, at the same time, I think building your whole identity on top of your sexual orientation (or anything else) is a mistake because by doing so you're basically brain-washing yourself. Think of the people who spend years in loveless marriages because they couldn't accept that they felt attracted to the same sex; I see no reason to think that can't happen in reverse. A person might spend years in a gay relationship and then become attracted to someone of the opposite sex. If their identity is built on their sexuality they're going to have a bad time.
So, my basic problems are that I think strict self-labeling can be limiting yourself, and there is a certain hypocrisy in fighting for rights or acceptance only because you as an individual have suffered. It belies a lack of understanding and compassion for other peoples troubles. At the end of the day it's good for everyone that people create cancer charities, but the fact that so many only do it AFTER a loved one gets sick kind of bothers me. Same thing here. Do you have any thoughts on this second point?
reply
share
ChknSoupForDaFanboysSoul
10 years ago
I'm a hetero and I support of gay rights. My older brother is gay and he came out to me around my 18th birthday. I'm 36 now. I'd like to think that I would have the same views if he wasn't gay. The fact that I do not recall any negative thoughts towards gays before he came out to me is a good sign I think! I wasn't advocating for gay rights before he came out to me but I was young and hadn't really taken up any causes. When I'm arguing with homophobes, I'm not thinking about my brother, I'm thinking about how stupid their arguments are! We are almost at the stage that interracial marriage was at with Loving v. Virginia. A couple decades after that contemporary conservatives will "know" that gay rights are good only through hindsight bias. I've seen many people argue that Christians will not cave on this issue. I dont believe they will cave on abortion but they will cave on homosexuality. They will want the converts. They will need the numbers. I hope they don't adapt on this social issue as they have with so many of the others. Whenever they adapt is allows them to survive longer. I want them to keep on this path. They are bleeding their flock. Religion needs to die, not adapt.
reply
share