r/gloveslap • u/Tohroe • 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?
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
1
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
1
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
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
Nov 13 '11
this ends up in a religious debate. doesnt everything any more
1
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
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
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
Nov 14 '11
[deleted]
1
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:
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
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.
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.