|
|
|
September 17, 2007
hellish choice beats heavenly genes
Clayton Cramer links a provocative piece in Mother Jones magazine about sexual fluidity and the reparative therapy movement. Titled Gay by Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity, it explores various perspectives, and reports unsurprising evidence that some people can and do move in either or both directions sexually. What I immediately disliked was the premise of the sub headline: News: If science proves sexual orientation is more fluid than we've been led to believe, can homosexuality still be a protected right?"Science" should have absolutely nothing to do with it. This touches on why I have long believed that from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, the argument that homosexuality is a choice is a politically superior, more astute position. Putting aside the merits of the "born that way" argument (I for one believe that some are, some aren't), concepts of freedom should not depend on genetics or biological predestination. There either is a right to do something or there is not. Nothing could be more personal than what one does sexually. To condition this on the expression of a gene would mean (among other things) that only certain people who had that gene would have the right to do it. Whether someone is born with a tendency to do something is of little relevance to the right to do it. If a pedophilia gene were discovered, would this give anyone the right to engage in pedophilia? Would a dishonesty gene confer a right to steal? Should psychopaths have the right to commit heinous crimes simply because they might be "born that way"? I think the answer to all of these questions is an unequivocal "No," because innocent, non-consenting or non-adult third parties are harmed by these actions, and thus society has an interest in criminalizing them. Not so with adult homosexuality. No matter what people think of it, there is no legitimate moral argument that what one adult does with another does intrinsic harm to anyone else, much less society. Lots of people might disapprove, just as they might disapprove of drinking or smoking. But it isn't their business. And while it might be a legitimate field of scientific inquiry to want to examine why people might do certain things, it isn't the government's business to force them one way or another. As far as switching sexual preferences, there are of course homosexuals who have "gone straight," although I suspect many of these are bisexuals who've just decided to switch their emphases. (And what, by the way, would we call a monogamous bisexual?) I have to say that in the half a century I've lived, I have known many more former heterosexuals than former homosexuals, but the very fact that people can go in the straight to gay direction means they could theoretically also go in the other. I do think that as a practical matter, heterosexuals are more tolerant of former heterosexuals than homosexuals are of former homosexuals, because (rightly or wrongly) the latter tend to be perceived as sitting in judgment. Most of the former homosexuals are presented along the lines of "I used to be what you are, and now I am not, and you can change too!" and when you say that to people who have no interest in doing that, it can come off as condesecending. (Add defensiveness and the type of group dynamics that can express itself at a gay event, and there's a recipe for some serious conflict.) But I try not to make it my business what people do, as long as they don't try scolding me about whatever they might think I do. I think most people just want to be left the hell alone. I think this dispute is aggravated by religious co-factors, because the fact is that many of the people in the reparative therapy business are not in the therapy business, they're promoting religious "cures." Normally, we do not think of "sin" as a disease to be cured, but as a choice made by the sinner. Implicit in this choice, though, is the recognition by both the religious "treatment giver" and the religious "patient" (if that is the right word) that the behavior is a sin. Someone who does not share the religious belief that homosexuality is sinful is thus unlikely to benefit from any religious cure. It makes about as much sense to offer to cure pork eaters of their disease by converting them to a religion which forbids pork. The argument that homosexuality is a sin leaves largely unresolved the tension between the choice model and the disease (or medico-scientific) model. This leads to a certain inconsistency in the application of the disease model. Think about it; if homosexuality is an inappropriate sexual choice, then all that would be needed to "cure" homosexuals would be medically supervised lessons (probably aided by a sexual surrogate) in the finer arts of penile-vaginal intercourse. Is that what the religionist cure advocates want? Hardly. Most of them would condemn the idea out of hand, for the goal is not to much to treat homosexuality as it is to oppose an idea. According to the Dobson religious model, the idea of totally free choice in sexual matters would appear to come from Satan: ....a minion of James Dobson's Focus on the Family cheerfully explains the Gay Agenda to me: "It's doing whatever you want, whenever you want, with whoever you want, wherever you want."I don't think that's a vote for free choice. On the other hand, the Mother Jones piece also points out that gay activists can also be quite intolerant of free choice: Aaron doesn't put it this way, but he thinks of himself as a member of a sexual minority--not forced into the closet by an oppressive society, but living under the restrictive view that sexual orientation is a biological category, something we are born with and that is impossible to change. When I tell him about some of what I saw at NARTH--like when Nicolosi, recalling one of his antagonists at the apa convention, said, "I knew that she was a lesbian--I don't know why; she was wearing a muscle shirt"--Aaron doesn't defend the organization. He knows that NARTH doesn't like gay people much (he's attended one of their meetings). But he's more concerned with a different kind of intolerance. "Not all homosexual men want to lead a gay lifestyle. Gay activists shouldn't be threatened by that. I mean, here I am, as a liberal, telling gay people to accept diversity."The whole thing is an interesting read, although I think both "sides" are forgetting that choice cuts both ways. A right to do something includes a right not to do it. The right to be gay includes the right to be an ex gay. And an ex ex gay, and so on. The larger issue is why so many people care about personal concerns which properly belong to the people affected. Unless someone asks for help, I don't see how it becomes anyone's business to reach out and mess with him. Maybe it is human nature for people to try to tell others what to do, though, because even gays (people who often consider themselves the victims of intolerance) do not hesitate to display intolerance towards other gays who they deem in need of "reform." This video shows an effeminate gay man with a complaint I've heard before: "mainstream" straight-acting gays are intolerant of effeminate gays. (Which almost mimics the position of "straight society" that gays are effeminate and therefore repulsive.) I don't see much functional difference between telling this guy that he should "butch it up" and stop being effeminate and telling him he should start acting straight and dating women. (I'm also wondering who will cure the bloggers, but that's another issue. I'm convinced there has to be a blogging gene. I mean, who would do this voluntarily without pay, day in and day out? Think about it.) UPDATE: An anonymous commenter has taken me to task for advocating slavery, in this passage: Not so with adult homosexuality. No matter what people think of it, there is no legitimate moral argument that what one adult does with another does intrinsic harm to anyone else, much less society. Lots of people might disapprove, just as they might disapprove of drinking or smoking.Asks the commenter Are you saying that the abolitionists, and those Union soldiers who signed up for combat specifically to free slaves, were wrong?My reply below is that it's quite obvious that I was talking about consensual sex here, and most readers would know that, but that I suppose I could insert "consenting adult" after the word another. The point was made that I missed a couple of words. Here is what I should have said: Not so with adult homosexuality. No matter what people think of it, there is no legitimate moral argument that what one adult does sexually with another consenting adult does intrinsic harm to anyone else, much less society. Lots of people might disapprove, just as they might disapprove of drinking or smoking.I think I'm wordy enough already, but maybe not. Does it help now that I have issued a clarification? Was anyone else confused? Seriously, is there anyone who thought I was advocating slavery? posted by Eric on 09.17.07 at 04:46 PM
Comments
Thank you for your even-handed treatment of this. Too many people have their peeking-out-from-under-the-covers agenda pretty visible on this. Assistant Village Idiot · September 17, 2007 10:27 PM I have nothing to add. Just a hurrah! Well said. William and Meleva · September 18, 2007 09:24 AM No matter what people think of it, there is no legitimate moral argument that what one adult does with another does intrinsic harm to anyone else, much less society. Hmm. Once upon a time, it was legal for one adult to buy and sell other human adults. A lot of people, including some of my ancestors, worked very hard to end that. Are you saying that the abolitionists, and those Union soldiers who signed up for combat specifically to free slaves, were wrong? Just Asking · September 18, 2007 10:15 PM Slavery is not consensual. I think it's quite obvious that I'm talking about consensual sex here. (If you insist, I suppose I could insert "consenting adult" after the word "another," but I think most regular readers know that I oppose slavery.) There's a lot of typing involved in these many posts, and I do sometimes miss words, but I try to make it clear what I think. You made the point that I missed a couple of words. Thanks for catching me though, but I must warn you that I sometimes miss things. There are plenty of typos in these posts too. Did you really want to know whether I was advocating slavery? Just asking. Eric Scheie · September 18, 2007 10:30 PM Goodness, you sure got your panties all twisted up because of a simple question. How about consensual slavery, where Person A agrees to become the chattel of Person B? How could you logically object to that? Or consensual murder, followed by cannibalism, surely you don't have a problem with that, do you? Just, y'know, askin... Just Asking · September 18, 2007 11:50 PM Actually, because you invoked the moral authority of your ancestors, it crossed my mind that you might have been serious. Now that you've changed the subject to "consensual slavery," I think you're simply being argumentative. My panties aren't twisted enough to follow this silly argument out, and while I have addressed the urgent issues of consensual murder and consensual cannibalism before, it's not worth providing links, as it's not what I was talking about in this post. You might consider upgrading your status from anonymous commenter to real blogger by starting your own blog, where you can accuse me of "ducking the issue" of consensual slavery. Then I could give you a link, and feel duty bound to, um "answer the charges." It could be so exciting! Eric Scheie · September 19, 2007 07:41 AM I've never understood the "such-and-such is only natural and therefor good" argument. The whole point of a moral code is so people don't act on their natural inclinations, but act civilized. If it were shown there is a genetic underpinning to (undesirable human trait here) would that mean it's then moral? This is not an argument for or against homosexuality, but rather that something being genetic or natural is morally meaningless. Morality and civilization are not natural, it's what separates us from animals. T M Colon · September 19, 2007 01:02 PM I don't see why you are so worked up about pedophiles. As a supporter of classical values, surely you are aware of the long tradition of catamites in the Roman and Greek cultures you profess to admire? And who are you to say that such activities are wrong? Are you basing you pedophobia on the outdated DSM-III, for example? If you actually read the article in Mother Jones, you'd run across the fact that homosexuality was delisted from the DSM by a very slim majority vote. In the future, either DSM-IV or DSM-V, sensible mental health professionals will have the votes to remove pedophila from its current status and note that it's only a problem if the person who prefers intergen sex feels guilt about it. Advances in cultural maturity will lead even phobes like you to realize that people are fully able to give consent even at the age of 12 or 10. Then the love that has to hide from bigotry can come out of the closet. You won't like this, I'm sure, but old people like you are often resistant to change. DeLurking · September 21, 2007 07:39 PM
The fact remains that by accepting anything consenting adults do to/with each other as "ok", you have no logical grounds for rejecting consensual slavery or murder. To reject those things, you would have to admit there are standards of behaviour that are outside of humans, bigger than any given human or group. But to admit that, you'd have to also admit that there are some things no human can consent to. Then you'd have to confront other premises. Thinking is painful, but if you are serious about your values, you should do it, starting with an examination of your premise that "there is no legitimate moral argument that what one adult does with another does intrinsic harm to anyone else, much less society". Of course, it would be much easier to attack the questioner, and no doubt more emotionally satisfying. A true philosopher will not choose the easy way. Which way will you choose? Just Asking · September 21, 2007 08:43 PM Again, I don't think children are capable of consent. This is a satire blog, and I am not "bound" by the ancients. (Your use of the word "phobe" makes me suspect you are not serious either, DL). The ancients did a lot of things we do not do; they saw no problem with slavery, but again, slaves do not consent. "by accepting anything consenting adults do to/with each other as "ok", you have no logical grounds for rejecting consensual slavery or murder." OK? Did I say that? I'm talking about whether people have the right to use force to restrict something, not whether it's OK. There is such a thing as enlightened self interest that society has in protecting itself against people who do harm to others against their will. The use force or fraud in a criminal manner is precisely why we have criminal statutes. Such statues cannot be legitimately used (IMO) to punish consensual harms committed by a person against himself (such as drug use) or to punish consensual activities between adults. I do not think heroin use is OK, but I think punishing people for that is immoral. Whether anyone thinks homosexual activity or sadomasochism or any other consensual adult sexual variants are "OK" is completely beside the point. It does not matter whether it is OK, whether I think it is, or whether you think it isn't. I think it is illegitimate to punish it. Once again, here is what I said: there is no legitimate moral argument that what one adult does sexually with another consenting adult does intrinsic harm to anyone else, much less society. The argument that this would justify "consensual slavery" or "consensual murder" is not a serious one. These things are not sexual activities, and in any event, the harm to society from them would be obvious. But they're not what I was talking about in this post. I suppose you could say that my argument would allow two men to consent to engage in a duel, or a boxing match, except that is not what I said. Eric Scheie · September 22, 2007 09:22 PM My question is completely serious and shows that your premise is hopelessly flawed, perhaps that is why you continue to evade the point. I'll spell it out for you in greater detail via the following hypothetical. Person A and Person B are deeply in love. So much so that Person B desires to submit to every aspect of Person A's being, by becoming Person A's chattel slave...property. In time, Person B becomes so bound up in Person A as to desire to become part of Person A's very physical being. And so Person B desires to be killed, in a loving and erotic way, and eaten by Person A. Therefore Person A erotically asphyxiates Person B, providing as much pleasure as possible along the way. Then Person A dismembers Person B, cooks and eats all the tasty parts, in keeping with the stated desires of Person B. This scenario is completely in keeping with your premise, yet you would prohibit Persons A and B from expressing their love for one another as they see fit. Therefore, it is your task to explain how the killing and eating of Person B by Person A causes any intrinsic harm to you, much less society. Alternatively, you can admit that erotic murder and cannibalism are things that you may personally disapprove of, but you can't find any justification for society to prohibit. This is the dilemma your own premise places you on. Squirm how you wish, I see no way you can get off of it, although your technique of ignoring the question and pretending it doesn't exist is one approach. A callow, immature and fruitless one, to be sure, but it is an approach. And a popular one, too, going by what I see both on and offline. Just Asking · October 9, 2007 04:48 PM
Sure, erotic murder & cannibalism, and chattel slavery may not be your idea of a good time, but you've already established clearly that no one has the right to tell anyone else what kind of sexual acts they may engage in so long as consent is obtained. So that bus left an hour ago, you cannot buy a ticket on it. You have to show real harm, or admit that these things ought to be lawful under your premise. As for the child sex thing up the thread, I regret to point out that the poster may be correct, although the language is clearly trolling for flames. There have already been attempts to change the DSM (DSM IV, IIRC) to make pedophilia only a mental problem if the practitioner feels bad about it. This suggestion (or whatever the psychs call it) did not pass, but the fact that it was put forth at all doesn't bode well for the future. Unfortunately I won't be surprised at all if down the road 10 years or so some specious "research" claims that 8 year olds can give informed consent to sex, and this is seized upon by the same political process within the DSM that was used to "normalize" homosexuality. When, and if, that occurs I fully expect most liberal/libertarians to go along with it, and some to applaud it. What would you do? Mumble "Gee, this wasn't what I intended" or some such? Just Asking · October 9, 2007 05:17 PM Congratulations! You now have your own post. http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/10/callow_immature.html (I can't promise to keep this up, though, because there really are other things I should be writing about....) Eric Scheie · October 10, 2007 10:50 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2007
September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 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 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• callow, immature and fruitless arguments cheerfully enabled here!
• When losing is winning • Will You Arrest Me? • The New Imperialism • Medical Totolitarianism • From The Wiki Damn It • hero is to heroine as knitting is to pork! • Petraeus a sycophant, claims former Khmer Rouge apologist • Dr. Robert W. Bussard Has Passed • Celebrate Columbus Day, PC style! (With multiculturalism, diversity, and feminism for all!)
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Some of us enjoy the abuse.