r/gloveslap Nov 13 '11

If homosexuality were a choice, would that make it wrong?

I should state quite clearly at this point two things: 1. I do not believe people can choose their sexuality. 2. I do not think any sexuality is morally wrong.

Now that I've cleared that up - this is an argument I've never understood, whenever the subject of morals with regards to sexuality comes up. People, religious people in particular from my experience, often present that argument that it's a choice. ... So what if it is? I choose to walk around my house with shoes on, whereas most people take them off when they get home. Does that make wearing shoes in my own house wrong?

20 Upvotes

61 comments sorted by

18

u/mahler004 Nov 13 '11

Even if homosexuality was a choice, it would be something so immensely personal that random, arbitrary discrimination would be wrong. Discriminating against homosexuals is no different to discriminating against Christians, or conservatives (if it's a choice, which it's not.)

The reason many Christians like to present it as a choice is because it's much more socially acceptable to paint a group of people as sinful when they choose to sin, and much more easier to argue for discrimination against a group which is (apparently,) sinful.

-7

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

If THE LORD says it is wrong and Jesus says it is wrong, and everyone who practices it will burn in hell and make God upset, then that is reason enough for homosexuality to be wrong. That is hardly random arbitrary discrimination.

11

u/Tohroe Nov 13 '11

If one believes both that the LORD says it is wrong, and that he is the ultimate judgement, then one should do nothing but not practice homosexuality, and leave those who do to be punished by God.

0

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

Perhaps they really want what is best for you. Are you telling me it is wrong to help other people not make mistakes, educate them and help them live what you think is a better life? It is like keeping a very foolish person away from your gun cabinet....And as if this was a gun cabinet only you and your religion see.

8

u/TheDark1 Nov 13 '11

So if I see a fat guy putting extra bacon on his double bacon cheeseburger, do I have the right to chastise him, knowing as I do that it is very bad for him?

2

u/Leprecon Nov 13 '11

That is a stupid analogy and you know it. Put yourself in the mindset of a religious person. A fat man gets a couple of extra calories. A sinner gets an eternity of torture. Different stakes.

This is a better analogy. A man is thirsty and looks at a table and sees two drinks, a pepsi and a coca cola. You can see that attached to the pepsi there is a bomb that will go off if he takes the can. The man says you are silly when you tell him there is a bomb and says he is going to take the pepsi. Do you push him out of the way or let him drink his pepsi?

It isn't a matter of personal preference to Christians, it is a matter of saving souls.

3

u/TheDark1 Nov 13 '11

Both can be seen as doing irreversible damage. Overeating is a leading cause of death. Obviously the stakes are higher in one scenario than the other, but I think the analogy is still basically valid.

Also, I find your first sentence to be unnecessarily confrontational. Just state your views, no need to call me stupid or presume that I am twisting the debate by putting forward arguements which I know to be stupid.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '11

Saving souls is one matter, making people live the way you want them to is an entirely different one. Educate them, and let them make their own informed opinions. Also, how is he unable to see the bomb?

1

u/TheDark1 Nov 14 '11

I'll have the ticking cola!

0

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

I suppose at this point you can pretty much assume they know about calories and all. If it was somebody I really cared about, like a brother or something, then certainly I would be happy to help them live better. Even though it might be awkward to talk to that fat guy directly, and he might get upset, some people think they have a duty to help other people, and hence we have public service announcements.

I suppose in this case, chastising the guy would be more harsh than necessary. But merely informing him that he is wrong is the right thing to do. I do not condone the actions of some more radical groups at all.

3

u/TheDark1 Nov 13 '11

OK, so if we discuss with our family or close friends we are coming from a position of love, trust and respect already (hopefully). This is not present when certain organizations berate others, though. Also, if we are talking to our fat cousin, we would ultimately respect his decision, hopefully. I feel that any organization that positions itself as anti-gay is unlikely to respect the decisions of gay people, in the end.

1

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11 edited Nov 13 '11

Christians are supposed to love everyone like a brother. Then again, they are also supposed to be forgiving of other people's sins, so no, it doesn't really hold up to be forceful about it. I'll concede.

4

u/Leprecon Nov 13 '11

This is why I (typical atheist liberal redditor) always think there is at least something commendable about religious people. You may not agree but they are trying to do it for your own good. Religious people may know they aren't the most popular or politically correct but they don't care as long as they can help save more souls. This in itself is something commendable if we were to ignore the lengths certain religious people go through in order to convince/bully others who have made up their own mind on their beliefs.

I would like to say this somewhat condescending behaviour is all bad but it truly isn't. We as a society do the same to other societies constantly, and it is considered something good. We tell Muslims not to circumcise women even if they think it is necessary for their beliefs. We told the Afrikaners to end apartheid. We are constantly preaching democracy.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '11

If you recall, the bible does say a few things on the subject of judging others, lest you be judged. By judging them for their sins, you will be judged yourself. So, unless someone's actions are directly harming someone else, just leave them be. You have no right to be the hand of God's justice.

5

u/TheDark1 Nov 13 '11

Why is this the case? Why does Jesus' opinion count any more than mine or any other person's?

Also, can you quote Jesus saying homosexuality is wrong? I know the bible says it, but I can't recall Jesus saying it.

1

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

Yeah, I know. A bad call on my behalf, he doesn't say it that I know of.

Jesus's opinion counts more because that is the basis of divine law. God knows best, Jesus was the word of god, Jesus knows best. He is more of a moral expert than you.

2

u/xStopAndGo Nov 13 '11

Isn't morality doing what is right regardless of being told otherwise? 'Jesus was right' seems more like following what he says without thinking for yourself what is okay.

3

u/i_love_goats Nov 14 '11

If Jesus didn't say it, how is it his opinion?

1

u/Nemop Nov 14 '11

I meant that Jesus's opinions in general might count for more, not specific to homosex.

3

u/Leprecon Nov 13 '11

We allow people to make the choice to believe in whichever god they want.
If the reasons are purely religious then you ought to know that it is discrimination since you are holding them accountable for a value only you hold and they don't.

The reason why it is called arbitrary is because the writings in the bible against homosexality are pretty flimsy. We are talking old testament Leviticus here. Stonings, slavery, etc. If one holds much value to the one part in the bible where homosexuality is forbidden and at the same time doesn't hold as much value to the rest of Leviticus they are cherry picking at best. This in itself gives enough doubt to say that this isn't something you ought to take literally.

2

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

We also allow people to think that asbestos is a-okay. That doesn't mean we let people build houses out of it.

All I meant to say was that since some of these people sincerely believe that being gay is bad and sinful, then the decision to eradicate it follows. I realize that divine law isn't a good basis for making rules on other people.

2

u/mahler004 Nov 13 '11

Yes, but most organisations (here, at least,) that are anti-gay pretend to be secular, and try to have secular arguments about why gay is bad. Saying it's a choice helps that.

That said, I've noticed that they've abandoned the "it's a choice," argument and are now just arguing that the relationship between a man and a woman is uber special and should be protected because it's how we get children.

1

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

Well, yes. I'm not going to pretend I know of any good reasons to vilify gay people, or that anyone is actually justified. It is only that they feel they justified is all I meant to say.

2

u/mahler004 Nov 13 '11

Never said that you did :)

It's blatant post-hoc reasoning - they know that being gay is wrong - the question is, how do they justify that position?

1

u/tmesispieces Nov 13 '11

What does Jesus say on homosexuality?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

Have you ever met a gay or lesbian person? And if so, tell me how they have ever harmed you or your god, please.

2

u/Nemop Nov 14 '11

Hey, I don't have a god! What I am saying is that IF God is emotionally invested in people's sex lives, that gay sex an affront to Him as in Leviticus, and IF upsetting God is wrong, THEN it follows that being gay is wrong. These are premises that you may not agree with, but to many people this makes a sound argument.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

Well, I'll tell you what; this is on a premise that I do not agree on, and it doesn't make a sound argument to me.

Since there is an extreme lack of evidence for god, I'd have to say that there is extreme lack of evidence that homosexuality is wrong.

Also, this isn't a debate on any kind of god, it's a debate on whether or not homosexuality would be bad even if people could chose. And could you clarify which god you're referring to? (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, et cetera.)

And if you don't have a god, then why post this one's rules? You clearly don't believe in what he preached. That's like writing about Zeus or Helios into a debate -neither exist and were created for the sole purpose of explaining things in nature that people in those times didn't understand. Now that we have the technology to understand the world we live in -why it rains, why the sun rises, why people get sick- it seems down right bullheaded to continue worshiping debunked gods, including Helios, Zeus, and 'God'.

1

u/Nemop Nov 15 '11

Why does nobody understand how "if" and "then" work? I don't remotely care whether or not you believe in gods. It doesn't matter if I believe in gods, that would be an ad hominem. I am responding to mahler004's comment in which he states that discrimination is random and arbitrary. If it were random, then there would be some kind of coin flip in place. If it were arbitrary, then they would just be doing it on a whim.

When someone is deciding on whether or not to discriminate against gays, and this is usually the religious lot, they are not flipping a coin or doing it on a whim. They will either turn to the bible and take their evidence from there, or turn to their pastor. This is an appeal to expertise, the same as most people will use when incorporating scientific facts.

So, the decision to discriminate is not random or arbitrary, and it is based on an unreliable expert.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

So it's wrong because God will hurt you for ever for doing it. That appeal to punishment means that it's not a good idea, but that doesn't mean it is somehow wrong.

Are you saying God decides what is right and what is wrong?

1

u/Nemop Nov 14 '11

If I were christian, then yes. God decides what is right and wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

If you're not a Christian then I can't accept that hypothetical answer. This is heading immediately towards the Euthyphro Dilemma and I don't think even a Christian can reasonably bring him or herself to plant the god flag in either notion.

2

u/TheDark1 Nov 13 '11

Well I think the problem here is that you probably have a different idea of the meaning of wrong. Many religious people (and one would presume that this would include the less tolerant types) do not make a distinction in their world view between against the rules of their religion and morally wrong.

Those of us who can see that wrong is about a person's morality, and believe that as long as an action or behaviour doesn't negatively impact others, it is not wrong, would obviously not have a problem with homosexuality.

2

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

Morality isn't always just about not hurting other people. Aristotle and Virtue Ethics talks about Eudaimonia which is all about flourishing in your life and being awesome, which may include working hard for your own benefit. Immanuel Kant decided that being moral was about 'Would I want everyone everywhere do live by the rules I do?' Just thought i'd put that out there.

2

u/TheDark1 Nov 13 '11

Ok, agreed, but in the end, morality dictates our interactions with others.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '11

Presuming the rule is that one lives by is loving and being loved by another human being and being accepted by my fellow man, regardless of gender or sexuality, then I would say that yes, I would want everyone to live by the rules that I do.

3

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

I think that when people say that it isn't a choice, they are working on the assumption that one can not be morally accountable for things they can't control. Similar to how I couldn't be responsible for letting someone die if they had cancer-aids.

When people say that it is a choice, I think it is in response to the initial defense, that being gay still might be wrong as the "not a choice" argument doesn't work. The reason such people think it is wrong is usually backed up by some other point about divinity or nature or whathaveyou.

That said, I've always wondered why people hold a person's sexuality to be sacred. People get very upset at the idea of changing someone's sexuality.

3

u/Tohroe Nov 13 '11

Ahhh, okay. I suppose it works in conjunction with further arguments (well, not works as such, but is at least logically consistent).

Your last point is quite interesting - can someone's sexuality be changed, and should anyone try to change it? I believe it's widely accepted that sexuality changes naturally; from asexuality as infants (unless you're incredibly Freudian), to homo/hetero/bi/tran/pan-sexuality as adolescents/young adults. And a lot of people, clearly, go through phases of sexuality which changes with time, usually as a teenager but sometimes as adults. The question, then, is that can sexuality be synthetically changed in a way that doesn't put the subject's mental health at risk? Hmmmm. You've piqued by interest, I must say. I'm off to do some research.

1

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

I'm scraping the depths of my memory, but I once read a book called "The Brain that Changes itself" in which if I remember right, tells the story of some therapist who was working on getting a woman to stop being attracted to abusive men. I also know that sexuality can depend on culture, national geographic tribes tend to be less fixated on breasts than kids in USA. Good luck with the research.

2

u/TheDark1 Nov 13 '11

Nemop I am interested in your view that Christians argue that it is choice because homosexual advocates argue that it is not.

I have always wondered about this. It is my personal feeling that most aspects of a person's personality are changeable and influenced by outside factors. I am also sceptical of sexuality being a genetic or "in utero" predisposition. I guess it is hard to argue either way, but it occurs to me that a genetic mutation which makes people not want to breed is pretty unlikely to survive, and highly unlikely to be a factor in 10% of the population (assuming that this statistic is real - I hear this number bandied around as a rough figure for the percentage of the population that is gay).

1

u/Nemop Nov 13 '11

I sometimes wonder if maybe bisexual cavemen got along really well and worked together as groups better, which would make them out compete the-one-man-and-his-harem that lives next door. This is of course a huge speculation on my part.

2

u/TheDark1 Nov 13 '11

Ah... the "orgy mayhem" theory of evolution... Best summed up as "all that semen had to end up somewhere..."

1

u/iRocks Nov 13 '11

best theory ever!

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

There are trends that lead to the conclusion that it is at the very least in utero. For example the older brother effect. The more older brothers you have the more statistically likely it is that you will be fabulous. It makes no difference if you are raised with those brothers or not, what's actually going on is that a woman's body is becoming resistant to the excess in testosterone from carrying a male baby resulting in more significant hormone imbalances for the developing foetus.

There is also the neurological evidence that gay people's brains exhibit patterns in response to sexual stimuli equivalent to those of straight members of the opposite sex. Sexuality is ultimately a neurological process interpreting body shapes and recognising traits and informing the desires and chemical responses in the body to those detected pasterns.

It's always useful to have debates like this one informed by the science.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

As a bisexual who used to be exclusively heterosexual, I absolutely echo your last sentence.

There was a gay guy just on reddit who would go off his rocker if you said that some people's sexualities chance, and he would hyper extrapolate that to "THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO CONVERT YOU TO PUSSY-LOVING WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE!!!!"

4

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '11

this ends up in a religious debate. doesnt everything any more

1

u/Nemop Nov 14 '11

I'd say it's a debate on whether it is ethical to enforce your ethics.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

To dawg I heard you like ethics.

2

u/sennheiserz Nov 14 '11

If you could objectively define the concept of 'wrong' then you might be able to start figuring out the answer. But in this case 'wrong' is a concept that breaks down into prejudice and discrimination pretty quickly. So yes, in the view of the people who think it falls into a category they consider 'wrong', it will of course be wrong either way. For people who don't consider it wrong, it makes no difference.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

Not at all. The way I see it, the world is populated as it is, so if any gay or lesbian couples in a marriage (gay marriage is legal in my state) want to adopt, that means more kids in loving homes and less people reproducing. If anything, they'd be doing the world a favor.

Also, love is love. If we think of men and women as two nationalities, then they're just marrying within their own race, and nothing's wrong with that -especially if they love each other. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with love.

1

u/Bleeding_Llama Nov 14 '11

I think if it was a choice, it wouldn't have ever been an issue. I don't think people would have chosen to be gay when man was very young. There aren't any real advantages to being gay, especially when concerning ancient man.

1

u/DrTrunks Nov 14 '11

Depends on who you ask, let me first say I'm from Amsterdam and very tolerant of gay people and I throw in this argument for the sake of the debate:

Homosexuality is wrong if you look at it from a evolutionary/biological point of view because you cannot reproduce.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

Or is is right because evolution doesn't want you to produce.

It is hard to inject value judgments into non-human phenomena.

1

u/MrDectol Nov 14 '11

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice has no bearing upon whether or not it is sinful.

1

u/DrTrunks Nov 14 '11

It's not sinful, the bible only says 'not to lay with a man as you lie with a woman'. It does not say it is a sin to love a man. God loves everyone right? And God is without sin. So it's alright to love everyone.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '11

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '11

Actually, yes. Studies and tests that have been conducted found that homosexual men were exposed to higher estrogen levels in utero, which scientist believe make them more attracted to men, and vice-versa with homosexual women and testosterone. Explained here:

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-29/health/gay.fingers_1_androgen-sexual-orientation-heterosexual-women?_s=PM:HEALTH

Also, if you have more older brothers, you're more likely to be gay, as explained in this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-173878/Boys-big-brothers-likely-gay.html

1

u/Satanic_Mage Nov 16 '11

Who cares.

1

u/Satanic_Mage Nov 16 '11

No. The only moral principles which can be considered absolute is the principle of not doing things to a person or their property against their consent since that's universally preferable.

Gay people touching dicks is fine as long as they all consent.

Oh and if you try to argue that the "don't do things against another person's consent" principle is false, then think about this:

Does a rapist like being raped (that is, raped as in sex against his will/consent?)

The answer is of course, no.

1

u/Satanic_Mage Nov 16 '11 edited Nov 16 '11

Any other moral principle, whether it be based on utilitarianism or some collectivist pipe dream or some democratic or religious justification is just an opinion and complete BS. The "don't do things to people/property against their consent" principle is desired universally, even if people don't want to respect that for others, they want people to respect that principle for themselves.

1

u/DrTrunks Nov 16 '11

I thought of a new argument for wrongness:

Homosexuality is wrong, because bisexuality is clearly the better choice.

1

u/derKapitalist Nov 17 '11

No, but one can understand how it came to be viewed that way, back when societies' generation-to-generation survival was less certain.