|
|
|
May 14, 2005
I stink therefore I am
Rosemary Esmay (via Michael Demmons) looks at the gay/straight pheromone study and observes: If it can finally be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality is biological, then perhaps true equality for gays and lesbians can finally be achieved. Also, from a religious standpoint, the idea that homosexual behavior is sinful should be called to question. If it is biological, then we can't fault people for behaving in the manner that God made them because God doesn't make mistakes.While I am no more impressed by this study than I would be by one "proving" that meat eaters like the smell of meat but vegetarians don't, I do have my biases. I don't think it can ever be proven that all homosexuality is biological, because common sense and personal experience tells me that some is, some isn't. No "rule" is right all the time. I've known gay men who I'm sure were born that way, but I've known others who've simply enjoyed homosexual acts because they've wanted to. The element of choice and the word "choice" are so over-invoked that I almost hesitate to use the word, but I'd like to ask a rather cynical question along the "what if" line. Let us suppose that homosexual practices can be deliberately chosen and that homosexual desires can be preprogrammed before birth. Does this make those who choose to engage in homosexuality any more "guilty" than those who don't? Unless something is wrong with homosexuality, I fail to see why. If we approach this from a purely Machiavellian perspective, and assume that there is one no right or wrong theory explaining homosexuality, which theory more advances the cause of freedom? The one which maintains homosexuals are born that way and have no choice would seem more likely to stigmatize them by asking society to make allowances for them. It has a patronizing, even debasing feel to it, and it encourages political chicanery. On the other hand, simply acknowledging the right to do what one wants with one's own body and leaving it at that does more to advance human freedom and dignity. Not only of homosexuals, but of heterosexuals, people into various sexual minority group interests, and bisexuals. Regarding the latter group, in the comments section, Dean asks, Also, what about bisexual people--is it okay to kick them around because they clearly DO make a choice?No, in my opinion it is NOT OK to kick them around because they have a choice. Freedom is about choice. In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I'd most likely have to be considered bisexual (as opposed to "gay" or "straight") but I hate these labels. I realize that some people maintain that there are no bisexuals. Fine. I'll just allow them to stick whatever label they want to stick on me. Liberal conservative, gay straight -- I get tired of it all. I'll be "whatever." The right to love who you love trumps labels anyway. posted by Eric on 05.14.05 at 03:51 PM
Comments
What riles me is the insipid trope [repeated in the comments at QOAE.net] that no-one would 'choose to be a social pariah'. As if that's even germane. People of all sorts [punkers, drug addicts, Born Agains, Republicans in blue states, etc.] do that all the time & it proves nothing except that the speaker is an idiot. Yes, people do indeed choose alternative sexualities. It may in fact be the case that biological differences have less to do with sexual preference than with an increased, hardwired desire for novelty in physical experience. urthshu · May 14, 2005 11:35 PM It strikes me as unfair to maintain that only homosexuality and heterosexuality are hardwired, but that other sexual variants are not. The other thing which bothers me is the assumption that the inborn nature of something would have anything to do with its rightness or wrongness. If things like intelligence are inherited, so what? Eric Scheie · May 15, 2005 12:33 PM I'm Conservative -- proudly. I oppose changing the Pledge of Allegiance, and I totally oppose the radical Communist movement to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. A preference for the female (gynosexual) or for the male (androsexual) may be innate, as is femaleness or maleness itself -- or it may be chosen, as is religion. As the sexual embrace is a sacrament, it deserves the same Constitutional protection as other acts of worship. That is where I stand. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · May 23, 2005 06:38 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Laughing at the failure of discourse?
• Holiday Blogging • The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Eric,
I totally agree with your attitude on this. You should apply the same principle to every issue. Don't allow yourself to be labelled, don't allow people to make statements about you based on labels they choose to put on you...debate the issue on the merits of the issue...talk about the underlying principles...this is the basis of my rewrite of the pledge of allegiance.
--Dylan