[MP-Ryan]

I've become a little uncomfortable with the biological argument for gay rights - even if it were purely a matter of choice, being gay is so harmless it shouldn't matter - but it seems to connect with a lot of people who otherwise won't listen, so it's at least tactically useful.

Precisely.

Unfortunately, opposition to gay rights often correlates with religious belief against what religions see as a choice; by pointing out that sexuality is not a choice, you confront these arguments with the uncomfortable realization that this doctrine goes against other teachings of their religion - typically love and acceptance of who people are.

I also particularly like the tactic of asking opponents to rights recognition for homosexuals (in particular) how other people being gay affects their lives, but that isn't a particularly useful tactic in this discussion.

[Luis Dias]

"tactically useful"?

Temporarily, perhaps. Not in the long run. Imagine that we find that no, that in fact gaydom is something not "biological" (everything's biological but let's stick with this definition), and that with a proper 21st century "treatment" we can get gays to become hetero.

What then of your arguments? They just backfire. It's like the racist argument on how science "says" that the "races" (of course it's not races, it's ethnics) are not different in what comes about intelligence, etc., therefore racism is false. Well, the obvious problem with this argument is that Science is a harsh mistress and it could potentially actually find the opposite to be true (I am not saying it will, I know it even to be really improbable to do so), and so what would that entail, that racism is a scientific justifiable position??

This is the kind of stuff that makes me appalled whenever someone brings up science to prove their moralities. No, thanks I don't need science to tell me that gaydom is a "hardcoded" phenomena for making me respect gays and their rights, just as I don't need Science to disprove racist theories of intelligences and whatever to just disregard the whole Racist stuff altogether from the start.


Don't even give them that ground "well Science says this so", because then these crooks will find ways for science saying "otherwise" and then you are left with a bag of nothing.

[MP-Ryan]

The point is, Luis, that some people don't respond to reason unless its predicated on an appeal to authority.  And the very interesting thing about human psychology is that if you do change a person's view after an appeal to authority (science, religion, politics, etc), they often become as ardent defenders of their changed view as they were of the original one.  Hence the "born-again Christian" phenomenon.

Reasonable people are going to recognize human rights on the principles of equality, liberty, and harm, but for everyone else, additional tactics are required.

[Luis Dias]

Well then, never complain to me that science is politicized and what not!

It's not as if these things have no consequences.

[Phantom Hoover]

"tactically useful"?

Temporarily, perhaps. Not in the long run.

That's exactly what 'tactical' means in this context.

[Herra Tohtori]

I've become a little uncomfortable with the biological argument for gay rights - even if it were purely a matter of choice, being gay is so harmless it shouldn't matter - but it seems to connect with a lot of people who otherwise won't listen, so it's at least tactically useful.

That's a good point, although as a known fact it is still useful as a counter-argument to people who demand gays should choose not to be gays in order to conform to whatever authority demands so (whether it's religious authority that says gays are evil, or just the general attitude of the population).

But you're right anyway - even if it were a choice, so what. Religion is much more of a choice - there's no biological argument for choosing any particular religion or none at all (although there's some suggestions that there may be biological basis for how probable it is for a person to be religious or non-religious and that may affect their choices in life).

[Luis Dias]

"tactically useful"?

Temporarily, perhaps. Not in the long run.

That's exactly what 'tactical' means in this context.

Right.

[666maslo666]

While being gay is not a choice, acting on it (gay sex and the like) is a choice, and that is often the main target of anti-gay activists. So thats another reason why "its not a choice" is not a very effective argument to defend gay rights.

[karajorma]

That said, any and all claims that being gay is a choice should be shot down immediately. Simply from a scientific point of view, you should not allow stupid misconceptions to propagate.

[Mars]

Having sex seems like it might not be a choice, in any way that matters, to a vast swath of people. I don't know if you could argue that seeking sexual relations is more of a choice than anything else we mammals do, like eat, defecate, and pair-bond. Yes our conscious minds have some ability to delay these things, but our genes aren't still around for no reason.

[StarSlayer]

Seriously if someone actually accepted that sexual preference is not a choice, but then went on to demand that they remain single and celibate that person would need to be punched in the kidneys.

[Luis Dias]

Don't be so astonished, that's the position of most conservatives out there. They will say that this "lust" is an abhorrent one and should not be condoned by the state, etc.

[MP-Ryan]

Seriously if someone actually accepted that sexual preference is not a choice, but then went on to demand that they remain single and celibate that person would need to be punched in the kidneys.

Personally, I'd aim lower and hit harder.  Give them a taste of their own prescription.

[Luis Dias]

https://twitter.com/mattstat/status/439132921874485248

[The E]

Word, Luis

[yuezhi]

The word Celibacy brings me back to the word church.

[karajorma]

Ironic cause the word is largely misused from its original (and still valid) meaning, which is to remain unmarried. You can say you are celibate and then spend all day ****ing. As long as you don't get married. Which you can't do if you're gay in Uganda anyway. So complaining that gay people should be celibate is somewhat strange if you deliberately read it to mean the older rather than newer meaning of the word.

They should be complaining about their lack of chastity. Of course no one does that because you can't hear chastity without thinking of chastity belt and being reminded how medieval the whole concept is.

[InsaneBaron]

The word Celibacy brings me back to the word church.

Ironic cause the word is largely misused from its original (and still valid) meaning, which is to remain unmarried. You can say you are celibate and then spend all day ****ing. As long as you don't get married. Which you can't do if you're gay in Uganda anyway. So complaining that gay people should be celibate is somewhat strange if you deliberately read it to mean the older rather than newer meaning of the word.

They should be complaining about their lack of chastity. Of course no one does that because you can't hear chastity without thinking of chastity belt and being reminded how medieval the whole concept is.

If tolerance of homosexuals is required on HLP, why is tolerance of Christians optional?
I'm not attacking homosexuals in this post, I'm simply pointing out that there's a double standard here. If it's wrong to chew people out for their sexual orientation, it should be equally wrong to insult people or call them names because of their religious views. This came out in the Ham/Nye thread as well, where we got a lot of "Religious people are idiots and here's why" posts. This goes against the very principles that were discussed in the forum guidelines.

[karajorma]

Who said anything about attacking Christians? I can't even see where I mentioned Christianity in my post at all.

I'm attacking anyone who says "everyone should follow the sexual orientation I say they should". It's one thing for someone to choose to give up sex and be chaste, it's completely different for someone to point at someone else and say "you should be chaste." The point I was making is that that sort of idea is as medieval as the chastity belt. A device designed for saying "You should be chaste because I say so."

And like the chastity belt, the idea is to limit sexual expression in others, but never yourself. I doubt the idea of saying "Gays shouldn't have sex" would be anywhere near as popular if everyone saying it also had to give up sex themselves.

[Luis Dias]

He's talking about smth else, about the double standards where homossexuals (and the idea of homossexuality) should be tolerated but that there's no such demand for christians (or christianity).

I can understand where he comes from.