(May 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm)libalchris Wrote: We're referring to physical attraction. For example, I could choose to have sex with a male, as repulsive to me as that would be. I can not, however, choose to feel attracted to another man, because I am not homosexual.
We're referring this same sense to homosexuals. Either every time they engage in acts of homosexuality they really don't want to, and are simply engaging in acts of sin just to piss off God and Christian fundamentalists, or they are really attracted to their partners. Since I cannot choose to be attracted to another man, I would assume that homosexuals cannot choose not to be attracted to a member of the same sex.
Does that make sense?
Ah, we were arguing different things. Your view sort of takes the power away from having choices at all, though.
Going back to my Pepsi vs. Coke argument, you can say that I don't get to choose which flavor I have a preference for. Therefore, when it comes to choosing whether I drink Coke or Pepsi, there's really no choice at all. I will simply reach for the one I prefer without choosing, assuming that my preference is strong either way (strict hetero- or homosexual), grab whichever I prefer at a given time (bisexual, simplified for sake of argument), or grab a Faygo (filthy, filthy Juggalo). Any semblance of choice is illusory, though, since I'm unable to control my preferences.
I think that argument is a reasonable one, but I don't believe it fairly represents the human experience. We definitely feel as if we have choices, so saying sexuality is not a choice, but other similar experiences are, feels entirely contradictory. I'm completely with you if you want to view it from the perspective that choices are illusions. I just don't think defining things in those terms is very useful for discussion.
