|
"Homosexuality is a choice" and its paradox
|
 (August 6, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I've had the same thoughts, but I put them a little more succinctly. I just tell anyone that thinks homosexuality is a choice to go be gay for a month and videotape it to prove it. Well, that's different of course. Being straight is not a choice, it's the natural order of things, amirite? 
A very good actor can be gay for a month on tape. I agree with what futile said, that the action is a choice, but preference isn't.
 (August 6, 2013 at 3:48 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: A very good actor can be gay for a month on tape. I agree with what futile said, that the action is a choice, but preference isn't. Yeah, they can make out with a guy. I'm talking about going all the way super-duper mega gay(sex).
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(August 6, 2013 at 3:52 pm)Faith No More Wrote:(August 6, 2013 at 3:48 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: A very good actor can be gay for a month on tape. I agree with what futile said, that the action is a choice, but preference isn't. With determination, anything is possible. IMHO. Instead of asking someone to do it to prove a point, offer them 1 mil and some would do it.
If I was Bill Gates, I would.
But it would have to be a month of gayness. They have to live it, not just tiptoe in and out.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Do you think they'll be unwilling to do it or that they won't last that long? I'm leaning on the side that some will manage.
Won't last that long.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
 I'm reminded of the old saw that you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Anti-homosexual theologies provide a rationalization for homophobia which the person already likely feels. Challenging the rationalization won't help, because it is the attitude holding the rationalization in place, not the rationale holding the attitude in place. Recently there was a political battle over adding a marriage amendment to our state constitution. Typically, a lot of money is funneled into such battles by third party, pro-amendment forces. In our state, those fighting the amendment made an explicit choice of strategy that they would not frame the issue in terms of fairness and rights, although they could; instead, they focused on the personal angle of reminding people of friends and family in their life who would be affected, and how they would feel about that. By focusing on the feelings rather than the rational arguments, we were one of the few states in the country to defeat such an amendment. ![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg) 
I think sexuality is a highly complicated issue, and there are many influences on sexual choice. People ALWAYS have a choice of what gender they have sex with (or at least to choose not to have sex)-- however, it's possible that one of them will be highly pleasurable, and the other highly disgusting. So the question isn't whether it's a choice-- the question is whether there's a good reason to force people who find same-gender sex more pleasurable than hetero sex to engage in hetero sex anyway.
Really the only really good reason I can think of, and this is just my opinion, is that parents invest a lot in their children, and the main payoff they hope for is grandchildren. Certainly, I would be disappointed if both my kids were gay, and my genetic line was wiped out. And I think ultimately, that's where the "morality" gets stamped on it-- elders generally coin moral rules, and elders generally want to see cute little kids running around but can't make them. Just brainstorming here. As for overcrowding and pollution-- wow, if there was much more homosexuality in, say, China, that would be nothing but a win-win all the way. 
Give a shit. It's not a choice. But so what? What difference should thst make anyway? Even if it was a choice (and it isn't) that wouldn't suddenly make it wrong. That wouldn't suddenly mean homophobic pricks can get a say in another adult's sex life.
One of these days, when someone says it's a choice I'm not even going to correct them. I'm just going to say "...and?" And wait and see where the fuck that argument goes. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
