gay being a choice.

Post Reply New Topic

good point!

another good point

The question of whether it is a choice or not assumes that certain things in life are. If you don't believe in free will, as I don't, nothing is a choice. Just certain things seem to be, ( we are taught to believe that they are, and/or tend to experience them as if they were ).

It's part of the current construction of sexuality that it should seem "unchosen" in comparison to other things which are perceived to be/categorised as "chosen". Modern society presents sexuality as something "natural" rather than socially constructed.

The truth is that it isn't, ( chosen ), because nothing is, but why it is seen as "unchosen" and other things as "chosen", is interesting.

This classification also creates internal contradictions/paradoxes about how to treat "it", and the rights "it" must be allowed. The "gay rights" movement is connected to the "queer movement" which argues that sexuality is socially constructed. ... Why does society teach that sexuality is not a choice, but that certain/many other things are?

In the same way as the label Aspergers gives people certain rights, as it declares their behaviour "unchosen", so people labelled "gay" now have certain rights, ... so long as sexuality is unchosen. Are these various movements gradually eroding the place of ( belief in/"support for" ) "free will" in the organisation of society, ( central to it for several hundred years now )?

"Gay" is only a word anyway, which society applies to certain people. But nobody is gay. It only makes sense within a very narrow conception of sexuality. One in which either fancy the "other sex", ( itself an artificial construct ), or one's own, or both, ( or neither ), for the whole of one's life.

It suggests that sexuality is something relatively fixed, a part of one's identity, ( another social construct ), rather than something one does, which can be very different at different times and in different places, depending on circumstances, which include social conditioning, and one's age, etc.

Are male prisoners, who have penetrative sex with other men in prison, gay? If not, why not? Is the school-girl who adores, and fantasises about, her favourite female teacher, gay? If not, why not?
.

Last edited by ouinon on 12 Jun 2009, 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PS. Just realised that the really interesting thing is maybe not that society presents/"constructs" sexuality as something "unchosen", ( "natural", "spontaneous", "instinctive" etc ), in comparison to other chosen things, ( ie. it was "forced" to do so by gay rights activists ), but the conceptual contortions it has been going through ever since in order to explain, convincingly, why free will does not apply to sexuality, but does to other things.

Scientists are putting as much effort into finding where free will is situated in our mental processes, as was once put into locating the soul.

.

For instance, perhaps the reason why sexuality is presented so forcefully/pervasively as being "natural/instinctive" etc, is because that is a way to justify why free will does not apply to it.

Lots of advertising goes into spreading the idea that sex is sooooo normal, natural, like eating, ( ... ), because such an image of it makes it difficult for people to see how it is socially constructed, and thus no different from most areas of life, ... which understanding might lead to the thought that perhaps free will doesn't apply to other areas of life either.

The idea of sex/sexuality as "natural" is as oppressive/burdensome/discriminatory, ( if perhaps to different people, or in different ways, at different times in life ), as older ideas of sex, and as the idea of free will is itself. And it may be that the reason for it, this idea, is that it serves to "explain" why free will does not apply to it.

The idea of sex as something natural protects the idea of free will. If the "soul" was the older version of "free will", is it possible that an older image of sex, ( promoted/taught by the church ), as a dangerous force of nature which has to be controlled/repressed/held at bay, was how the church protected the ( christian ) idea of a soul.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 12 Jun 2009, 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think its pretty clear that its Not a choice, but christian fundamentalist really dont care. The reason is that they are the kind of people who base their worldview on what they WANT to believe and not what it actually true. The idea is this, even if being gay isnt a choice its against the social norms and so they think that gays should go against their instincts, essentially sacrificing their personal happiness for "the benefit of society". Those who oppose gay rights are populists who clearly favor the group over the individual.

Our closest relative in the animal world is the bonobo. Bonobos spend the day enjoying sex, alone or with others of either sex. That should help explain why we are as we are. Society imposes restrictions on us, but basically we'd love to live as bonobos do

I guess some of the problem is what is defined as "natural." The argument that sex is "for" reproduction is pretty popular, but people tend to have lots of sex in a lifetime relative to the number of offspring they end up having. So, if it fails to result in reproduction 99% of the time, does it really make sense to say that that is what sex is "for?" Like the Bonobo example, there's some pretty good suggestion that it has other purposes, which seems like more common reasons for it(!)

(Also leads one to wonder if this is why humans don't go into heat and are basically interested all the time.)

~=~=~=~=~=~

Re: "Reasons"

Ouinon, I'm not sure how much of your post(s) I understood, but the choice argument does seem like a rhetorical device to me. It's like saying "you can't hate black people because they didn't choose to be black" -- it acepts that there's something hate-able, then in a sad way goes back and "justifies" acceptance. IOW, it really shouldn't matter why people are (what is labelled as) gay, straight, etc., but that at this point in history it's neccesary because the general public still needs a "reason." Hopefully at some point it'll be accepted on first principles.

Being gay is not a choice. I'm straight. I couldn't just one day suddenly go "hmm. Today I will be sexually attracted to guys". I couldn't make myself be attracted to guys. And I never decided to be straight, much as I didn't decide to have brown eyes or be an aspie.

They tend to say even if you're attracted to the same sex you could be celibate, but who would willingly be celibate? Even if it were a choice, so freaking what? If someone is gay it doesn't hurt anyone else in the slightest. I wish more guys were gay so maybe women wouldn't be able to be so picky.

And men aren't picky?....Please....

No one suggested that men weren't picky, but you have to admit that women are MUCH, MUCH pickier than men and there are plenty of biological reasons for them being so.

'Your own personal experience' also happens to be a 'simple statement of fact'. How convenient.

Since you seem to know what you're talking about, you could elaborate what you mean.

So not true... some men are very picky and specific about how they want a women to look in terms of hair colour, weight, shape, personality... there is just as much pressure there for single women.

Keep in mind that its SOME men and not All, or even Most. The only men who actually can afford to be as picky as you suggest are men who are ultra-high status, like rock stars and athletes for instance. I dont care what most guys say they like because what they do totally contradicts such. Just think about it, the cost of making a bad choice is a lot higher for a woman than for a man. If a man makes a bad choice, even if he gets the woman pregnant, he can just run off and find a new female. If a woman makes a bad choice then she is stuck with the kid and having to raise it. Women cant have NEARLY as many (potential)children as a man can and so they try to find the best genes that they can.

I know that to be a fact because I know that I never got to choose, I just grew up being attracted to males, with zero attraction for females. If people had a choice, then I (being a people) would have had such a choice.