Why do people think it matters whether homosexuality is a choice or not?

[Yazman]

So I was watching a recent video by The Amazing Atheist where he was criticising homophobes. Not really going to bother getting into the details of it since that's not what the thread is about but if anybody wants to see it here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHLC06B1DUE

SO ANYWAY, after watching it and reading some of the comments all I could think was - and I see people harping on and on about how homosexuality is not a choice, how people are born that way, etc.

My position is, why does it fucking matter? It shouldn't! I believe that nobody should be oppressed due to their sexual preferences.

I mean, let's say for a second that in some hypothetical world that it was shown to be a choice (I don't actually think it is, it's just a scenario). Are all these people whose opposition to discrimination against homosexuality now going to change their opinion?

Do people think that a sexual preference being somehow inherent in people makes it somehow "more" or "less" acceptable? I personally don't see how the issue of choice or not really comes into it at all. People shouldn't be getting discriminated against based on their sexual preference, period. Whether they chose it or not, I really don't see how that matters. In a scientific sense it's interesting and could be quite revealing in that sense, but I just don't see how it's relevant in a socio-political sense.

We should be basing anti-homophobia campaigns around acceptance of other sexualities, regardless of whether it's a choice or not.

If it really isn't a choice, sure, that makes your position easier to argue, but in an ideological sense it seems almost like a facade for prejudice to me. If you're the kind of person who thinks it matters whether it's inherent or not, do you think it would be more acceptable for people to be discriminated against for being gay if they weren't born that way? Because it's almost as if you're saying "well it's ok for people to have that sexual preference because they're born that way, if they weren't born that way I wouldn't be ok with them!"

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I concur...whether it's a 'lifestyle' choice or genetic or whatever should have no bearing on whether you support homosexuals in their right to be who they want to be without fear of being discriminated against.

[The Jay]

I completely agree, there's no reason to force anyone to abstain from consensual sex with anyone they choose. It doesn't matter if they're gay, straight, ect by choice or not as it's no-one's business. Excuses of populational propagation for bigotry ignore the idea of personal autonomy.

[Landsharks eat metal]

I don't really think it should matter at all whether or not it is a choice, but if it is seen as a choice, that gives moralistic assholes a stronger leg to stand on in calling it "immoral" or "wrong". If God made them that way and they can't help it, then God would likely have to be okay with homosexuality or to be wrong, neither of which a lot of conservative Christians can stand the thought of.

Like where I live, the suggestion that homosexuality may be inborn is very controversial. Last year at my high school, the school board made us get a permission slip signed to be able to study the chapter that even suggested (not determined one way or the other) that people might be born homosexual, to prevent parental complaints. I discussed this on another message board, and most people thought that it was ridiculous and wouldn't have happened in other areas of the country.

So, I'm guessing it's more a backlash against religion than anything else, but I don't really know.

[manic expression]

The common thinking goes that if you don't choose something, you shouldn't have to suffer for it. Because of that, proving that homosexuality isn't a choice is a very effective way to get popular opinion behind LGBT rights.

Plus, if you concede that homosexuality may be a choice, then homophobic laws lose a lot of their discriminatory content. "It's a choice" doesn't quite justify certain behavior in other areas, so when applied here, the same idea doesn't hold much water with a lot of people.

Lastly, those who want to portray it as a choice desperately want to portray homosexuality as something that is contrary to human nature. They want to make homosexuality into just a recent trend spurred on by the supposed ills of decadent modern society. Then, it becomes a moral, ethical question instead of the simple matter of recognizing the rights of those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

people sometimes assume wrongly that if the determining factors are "nature" rather than "nurture", then it's a "natural" phenomenon and therefore worthy of acceptance.

[coda]

I agree! and sometimes it is a choice ---- and it should be! and someday when it has absolutely no residual stigmas attached nor discriminatory retribution, then lots more people will choose-- at whim, whomever they feel attracted to at a given moment... It's all is very archaic.

[No_Leaders]

I really don't think it should matter whether it's a preference or choice versus being born that way. Why dictate who has sex with who (as long as it's consensual of course.) Regardless the right wing will do everything to suppress it either way, it threatens their ideals, and their book of farce facts called 'the bible'. I don't think whether it's inherent, or a preference should change anyone's views or stance on being gay positive and fighting against homophobia.

[Luís Henrique]

SO ANYWAY, after watching it and reading some of the comments all I could think was - and I see people harping on and on about how homosexuality is not a choice, how people are born that way, etc.

My position is, why does it fucking matter? It shouldn't! I believe that nobody should be oppressed due to their sexual preferences.

Probably some people think that it being not a choice makes it more difficult to justify oppression of homosexuals ("it is not his fault, he was born that way!"). Considering the enormous amount suffered by women or Black people, and the fact that women and Blacks are in fact "born that way", it doesn't seem to me the brightest reasoning in the world.

Another thing is that the dicotomy It's-A-Choice/They-Are-Born-That-Way is false. People don't choose the environment where they are socialised, and that environment certainly can have a huge impact on what they are, what they believe, and how they behave.


I mean, let's say for a second that in some hypothetical world that it was shown to be a choice (I don't actually think it is, it's just a scenario). Are all these people whose opposition to discrimination against homosexuality now going to change their opinion?Not me, certainly. People are entitled to their choices.


Do people think that a sexual preference being somehow inherent in people makes it somehow "more" or "less" acceptable?No. If it can be proved that serial killers are "born that way", I don't think it justifies their actions, or makes it any bit more tolerable.


People shouldn't be getting discriminated against based on their sexual preference, period. Whether they chose it or not, I really don't see how that matters. In a scientific sense it's interesting and could be quite revealing in that sense, but I just don't see how it's relevant in a socio-political sense.This.

And we shouldn't rely on guesses about subjects science hasn't really nailed down (I see people arguing for abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses don't feel pain - if any day it is scientifically proven that fetuses do feel pain, which seems pretty much possible, there go abortion rights...)

Luís Henrique

[Ostrinski]

The only people who care are those that have ideological interest vested in proving that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, a foundation on which they can try to prove the point that it's a sin or w/e.

[NewLeft]

It's to keep homosexuality from being viewed as pathological.

[Valdyr]

As a queer person myself, I definitely agree, whether it is a "choice" or not shouldn't matter. Of course, as some others have pointed out, the whole way "choice" is conceptualized needs to be unpacked a bit, as the model of reactionaries and the religious seems to be that either things are "inborn and natural" (a result of God's creation) or have to be the result of their mystical version of free will, an incidental choice on the same plane as what to have for breakfast that morning.

This completely ignores, as Luis Henrique pointed out, the role of socialization in the development of identities, as well as the fact that, unlike in the models of reactionary ideologies, "nature" vs. "nurture" isn't so simple a divide. There is more to "nature" than genetics (prenatal environment, neural plasticity, etc.) and any such "natural" factor needs some activator. On the other hand, as materialists, we should remember that to at least some degree, any "social" factor needs to have a medium to work through; otherwise we fall into idealism, pure ideas effecting one-directional change on the world.

Again, as others have pointed out, it is only because of the reactionary understanding of "nature vs. nurture" that the debate is framed this way at all, because among the prevailing bourgeois ideologies, non-heterosexuality is something that needs to be squared with either the fact that God created the world, or that nature is some sort of God, as is common in the neo-positivist "naturalism" that is popular among bourgeois academics, a sort of re-run of Feurbach and/or Mach.

[isaacston]

It shouldn't matter. Pathologizing people who are different from the typical hetero cis man is used because we have to find a "reason" for why we exist. I frankly think that's bullshit. It's more of an issue of giving heterosexists less of a footing. If we provide them with evidence that we're "born this way," to quote a terrible song, then they can tout religion all they want, but science rides over religion--unless you're a politician in America.

[isaacston]

Also, different bit: the "born this way" argument, also called the medical model of homosexuality, was first put forth by Karl-Maria Kertbeny. He also was the first person to publicly use the word "homosexual," which made its first appearance in an anonymous pamphlet in 1869 Germany.

[Luís Henrique]

If we provide them with evidence that we're "born this way," to quote a terrible song, then they can tout religion all they want, but science rides over religion

They will just say that it is some kind of hereditary disease. After all, it is not like those don't exist.

Luís Henrique

[Yazman]

I see what some of you mean when you talk about refuting positions of homophobes, or trying to prevent them from pathologising homosexuality, but really.

I mean, to me it seems like we shouldn't be trying to justify anybody's sexuality to anybody else. It almost seems like you're trying to justify homosexuality to homophobes. LGBT people should not have to justify their sexuality. I don't think we as revolutionary leftists should be putting them in that position either, the position of "prove to the public why your sexuality is acceptable". It seems wrong to me.

Let people do what they want in their bedrooms. If somebody's sexuality is oriented differently, they shouldn't be discriminated against because of it. I don't see that we should be pandering to homophobes in (what I see as) an effort to "justify" homosexuality to them.

[The Jay]

Isn't debating and educating ignorance the way to eliminate it? That's what I aim for when I debate a bigot. If it's in public it's also for the benefit of the spectators. Those on the fence may be swayed by a rational argument. I'm sure you know all that though :).

[Luís Henrique]

Isn't debating and educating ignorance the way to eliminate it? That's what I aim for when I debate a bigot. If it's in public it's also for the benefit of the spectators. Those on the fence may be swayed by a rational argument. I'm sure you know all that though :).

Indeed, but why imagine that "not being a choice" may sway the opinion of anyone? If the bigot you are debating with has two neurones and the ability to connect them (OK, not really a huge possibility, but...) he may well retort, "What so? Sickle cell anemia isn't a choice, but it still is a disease".

Luís Henrique

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Indeed, but why imagine that "not being a choice" may sway the opinion of anyone? If the bigot you are debating with has two neurones and the ability to connect them (OK, not really a huge possibility, but...) he may well retort, "What so? Sickle cell anemia isn't a choice, but it still is a disease".

Luís Henrique

If when debating a bigot he abandons his position and takes up the disease bit than one has already done their job as a revolutionary; when the bigot made a abrupt change of tactics that is when you know they lost their original footing.

[black magick hustla]

It was for entirely political reasons. A sin can only be a sin if it is a choice.

[The Jay]

Indeed, but why imagine that "not being a choice" may sway the opinion of anyone? If the bigot you are debating with has two neurones and the ability to connect them (OK, not really a huge possibility, but...) he may well retort, "What so? Sickle cell anemia isn't a choice, but it still is a disease".

Luís Henrique

Then I'd challenge them to prove that such a biological phenomenon is harmful. All that they can go back to is the cultural arguments or the risk of AIDS or something along those lines. The cultural arguments would have already been addressed and the risk of disease argument is easy to counter.

I see what you're saying though, but one may simply continue pounding their frail positions.