Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How can people think homosexuality is a choice?

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inverse)
    Incorporate*

    Well that further proves my point. You have to be an irrational moron to believe in something and then attempt to contradict your system of beliefs, even though there are already far too many internal contradictions. I don't care which religion they follow; I wasn't bashing them for following a certain religion, but rather for being theists. Taking around ten seconds to type a sentence isn't "whining" and certainly didn't take twenty four hours to do.
    I don't understand why "being theist" necessarily constitues one as being moronic? (although I'm prepared to admit that on the internet the area of intersection of the two on a Venn diagram would be quite large)

    If you look hard enough you can see tensions in just about everybody's philosophy of life, whether they claim to believe in a universal goodness or in nothing at all. Surely it's unfair to accord religion additional scorn just because it happens to be a delusion you don't participate in rather than one you do?


    (Original post by a_stitch_in_time)
    asdfghjkkjhgfds I'm not using 'moral' as some sort of ideal to aspire to (neither will i use it as a pejorative) but as a (historically judeo-christian or whatever?!) standard of behaviour (and one of many at that!)!! basically, a lifestyle choice

    Have you read anything on the sociology of gender? @ 2

    there is a reason there's expressions like 'latent homosexuality' loll.. yeah most straight men and women who are strictly affiliated with religion/standards of behaviour have not bothered questioning them... I have questioned a lot of things... seen and experienced different people, different ways of life which I am okay with.. I come from the school of "anthropological philosophy"
    There are lots of different reasons why there could be expressions like "latent homosexuality". There are also expressions about pigs flying. The existence of an expression does not prove the actuality nor imply the necessity of the subject material.

    1.) i believe people are inherently bisexual but to varying degrees. that means the percentage breakdown differs for all of us. I believe that sex doesnt have to = gender .. meaning we have an outer shell and an inner shell.. not everybody's is in synch/according to heteronormative prescription but i never let any of that stop me from just .. 'being'

    2.) = how we are (consciously/latently) psycho-socio-culturally prescribed to behave, taking 1.) into consideration
    Thus far I have a degree of sympathy with your argument; I don't agree that we are all inherently bisexual (I don't think anyone is inherently anything) but I'm presuming that you are using that in the widest possible sense of the term
    (i.e. - that we have no predetermined preference, but that preference comes to be expressed through choice/actualisation?) which would make sense.

    3.) = realising there's a field called anthropology, psychology, sociology.. if individuals can in general, seek to understand themselves and live mindfully and responsibly that would be ideal and impact society in a nice way
    Here is where we diverge in a big way - to state my point simply "when you label you disable". By trying to define sexuality and identity in the way these disciplines do they attempt to 'fix' the concept, which is often not helpful in the slightest. Concepts are consistenly differenciating themselves as the networks of tensions that support them shift balance and what might work as a definition of identity at one point in time would seem completely farcical in another.

    I am thoroughly opposed to the Aristotelian system that says everything can be categorised and then put into a box, and maintain that the power of philosophy (and in particular, gender philosophy) lies in its ability to think difference. We gain more knowledge asking "what are the conditions for the becoming different of the extant?" than we could ever hope to by asking "how shall we categorise it?"

    4.) realising that 3.) is a way of life and that it's normal and expected to harbour confusion, resentment, and dislike towards alternative ways of life that seem to threaten us on a psychological, financial, institutional, ethnological etc level. Bonus points to those who are willing to grapple with this constructively to make their way to being the embodiment of 5.)

    5.) 'understanding', 'pluralism', 'progressiveness', 'intercultural sensitivity' &/ an amalgamation of cultures would be an the ideal macro level outcome, and not at all foolish to predict especially @ globalisation.. (tho Hollywood and lack of exposure might get in the way..). Should we wear Hogwarts-Housey badges with space for multiple colors, % breakdown and symbolic codes (as opposed to having our physical features, passport, gender, bling bling, and religion be the automatic markers..)? Will that make for an adequate identifier and invite mutual respect and mutually beneficial relations? or will some nitwit like Voldemort or heck, even a Joe Common, come and **** things up, especially since it's not like it hasn't happened before.. Will this encourage people who are simply alike to group together? I mean.. that's what happened at my boarding school< and supposedly makes anthropological sense...

    6.) rinse, repeat 1-5. It'll likely take some time.. I mean.. we'd need a massive overturn of the legal system, amongst other things (like a multidisciplinary, intercultural education curriculum.. I don't mean 'international school' style that sort of has one exist in a kind of socioeconomic & culturally homogenous bubble but caters oh so lovelily to the 'job market' #oh hai commodification of education!)

    7.) realise that things aren't too shabby in 2012, unlike in various other time periods.. maybe we'll have cause to be idealistic after all..

    8.) profit! and maybe I should start a religion.

    9.) What are the foreseeable pros and cons of 1.) to 6.)? Hmmm...
    I think you're advocating a more authentic way of engaging which life, which I approve of, but I have very grave reservations about the ability of definitive disciplines like sociology to contribute to debates on gender or sexuality in a meaningful way without precipitating a return of the same.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    I don't understand why "being theist" necessarily constitues one as being moronic? (although I'm prepared to admit that on the internet the area of intersection of the two on a Venn diagram would be quite large)

    If you look hard enough you can see tensions in just about everybody's philosophy of life, whether they claim to believe in a universal goodness or in nothing at all. Surely it's unfair to accord religion additional scorn just because it happens to be a delusion you don't participate in rather than one you do?
    ^ YES!!


    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    There are lots of different reasons why there could be expressions like "latent homosexuality". There are also expressions about pigs flying. The existence of an expression does not prove the actuality nor imply the necessity of the subject material.
    ^ absolutely. I realise I'm not as polished as I ought to be in articulation and analysis, but I'm getting there! :P I was just trying to take a short cut and ended up failing face down hahahhaa

    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    Thus far I have a degree of sympathy with your argument; I don't agree that we are all inherently bisexual (I don't think anyone is inherently anything) but I'm presuming that you are using that in the widest possible sense of the term
    (i.e. - that we have no predetermined preference, but that preference comes to be expressed through choice/actualisation?) which would make sense.
    ^ Was just about to change that to 'a/bi/pan/?'-sexual before I realise that somebody replied! LOL & yup yup yup @ "no predetermined preference, but that preference comes to be expressed through choice/actualisation". Is there a name for this, like a proper psych/phil term?!


    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    Here is where we diverge in a big way - to state my point simply "when you label you disable". By trying to define sexuality and identity in the way these disciplines do they attempt to 'fix' the concept, which is often not helpful in the slightest. Concepts are consistenly differenciating themselves as the networks of tensions that support them shift balance and what might work as a definition of identity at one point in time would seem completely farcical in another.

    ^Something I still need to dedicate time to think & make my mind up about.. by which I mean, able to write about it the way I did with my last post..But I really like how you articulated that last statement!


    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    I am thoroughly opposed to the Aristotelian system that says everything can be categorised and then put into a box, and maintain that the power of philosophy (and in particular, gender philosophy) lies in its ability to think difference. We gain more knowledge asking "what are the conditions for the becoming different of the extant?" than we could ever hope to by asking "how shall we categorise it?"
    ^ I go by 'to what extent' & multidisciplinary analysis. I have never read aristotle though I have 2-3 works of his on my shelf.. I sometimes categorise in the way I approach issues, but then my brain kinds of synthesises on it's own.. it's like a tree diagram & venn diagram thing which begins and develops at different intervals.. So everything is always subject to redefinition and re-modification..

    Would you mind rewording "what are the conditions for the becoming different of the extant?" or giving a concrete example? Like.. outline that way of thought.. any issue as an example would be fine so I can see

    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    I think you're advocating a more authentic way of engaging which life, which I approve of, but I have very grave reservations about the ability of definitive disciplines like sociology to contribute to debates on gender or sexuality in a meaningful way without precipitating a return of the same.
    ^ Hence 'multidisciplinary'.. I'm really not the poster child for any one discipline tbh.. I take everything from everything.. I don't discriminate at all (or try my best not to). I do engage with these disciplines critically... most definitely.. although not at an ideal rate.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a_stitch_in_time)
    ^ Hence 'multidisciplinary'.. I'm really not the poster child for any one discipline tbh.. I take everything from everything.. I don't discriminate at all (or try my best not to). I do engage with these disciplines critically... most definitely.. although not at an ideal rate.
    I'll try to give a brief outline of the conditions for becoming different, but if it's something you're interested in I'd definitely recommend
    Difference and Repetition by Gilles Deleuze. It totally transformed the way I thought gender theory.

    Nothing repeats itself exactly; traditional categorical logic looks for the threads that things have in common and uses those threads of commonality to classify. For example, Jeff has dated tony, rob, and steve. They are all guys. Therefore this tells us that Jeff is a homosexual. (Because homosexuals are men who date men)

    Thinking differnece would involve a focus upon which parts of the relationships were uncommon; things like tony having a foot fetish, rob being a vegetarian and steve being obsessed with Pink Floyd. And from these uncommon strands it would allow one to investigate not why Jeff has dated 3 men and is therefore a homosexual, but why Jeff has dated these three people specifically (and why they broke up) and would allow one to think in terms of Jeff's future possibilities as being unlimited by previous typification.

    Does that make any sort of sense?

    (Deleuze was the hardest UG module I ever did - six months of solid study and I still hadn't even begun to penetrate the depths of his thought - so don't worry if it sounds nonsensical)
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    I'm sorry, but those arguments are laughable. How does legalising same sex marriage have anything with an increased demand for legalised polygamy; the two have nothing to do with each other and you will find that in many places around the world there are just as many, if not more, heterosexual polygamists...
    Don't even bother debating with him; it's like talking to a brick wall.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    I'm sorry, but those arguments are laughable. How does legalising same sex marriage have anything with an increased demand for legalised polygamy; the two have nothing to do with each other and you will find that in many places around the world there are just as many, if not more, heterosexual polygamists.



    *cowers before a wave of negs*

    just for the sake of argument, let's have a look at this;

    Both homosexuality and polyamourous(ity/ness? IDK) are departures from a sexual norm that is heteronormative and monofidelious. I would argue that heteronormativity and monofidelity are in fact linked concepts; (I'm going to do it, however, with the sort of blistering speed and broad brush strokes that makes my inner historian weep)

    * Heteronormative suggests a male/female coupling

    * Since marriage has historically been a way of securing legal rights (inheritance etc.) it would have been disadvantageous to have had doubts over paternity, particularly so in an era when such things could not be proved. Hence the need for female -> male fidelity. (Male -> Female fidelity developed a couple of centuries later during the romantic period with the development of the middle classes as part of the ethics of being a gentleman)

    * Generally one woman has been tied to a man to make sure her offspring were "of his seed", and a man was tied to a woman in order to ensure her economic wellbeing when women were only granted rights vicariously through their husband.


    These things are all historical inputs into why we have developed the idea of a romantic heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman (Foucault argues this in much more detail in the History of Sexuality vol 1).

    But

    They are no longer necessary. For a start we have paternity tests and women do not have to live vicariously - they are now citizens in their own right. Since the social structures which dictated our norms have changed, we can change the norms themselves accordingly.

    Women are no longer valued solely for their productive capacity (if they were then lesbian relationships would have had even more of a struggle to obtain legitimacy), they are treated as beings in their own right - and though they have the right to be productive if they so choose they no longer have a non-optional duty.

    Since we can change the norms around who can be in a relationship with whom, why can we not change the norms around how many people can constitute a relationship? I'm not making any claims about moral equivalence or right or wrongness (I don't think any of the positions we're discussing here are inherently wrong), I just want to know why one norm can be changed while another must remain?

    What interested me about your response was not only that you distanced homosexuality from polyamory but that you appeared to accept that polyamory was wrong and something to be ashamed of.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Again, equality can hold only when the people involved are of no harm to others. Gays do harm others.
    We've been over this elsewhere: homophobia, even your rather veiled version of it, is demonstrably harmful to others. Same-sex relationships are not demonstrably harmful to others. I see you cited some crap from the Family Research Council that somebody else already roundly rebutted. Is that really the best you can do?

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    You call anyone who disagrees with you 'vile' or 'abhorrent'. I think it is vile that you want to silence those who disagree with you.
    Lovely. Please show me where I proposed silencing people who disagree with me.

    I feel no need to respond to your other points since they were covered in later paragraphs of the post you were responding to.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    Polyamourous(ity/ness? IDK) .

    Polyamory LOLLLL xD
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a_stitch_in_time)
    Polyamory LOLLLL xD
    What makes it worse is that I've got "polyamory" in the last sentence... total brainfreeze moment
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    We've been over this elsewhere: homophobia, even your rather veiled version of it, is demonstrably harmful to others. Same-sex relationships are not demonstrably harmful to others. I see you cited some crap from the Family Research Council that somebody else already roundly rebutted. Is that really the best you can do?
    There is nothing wrong with the FRC. It is one organization in this country that is doing a lot of good.

    Lovely. Please show me where I proposed silencing people who disagree with me.

    I feel no need to respond to your other points since they were covered in later paragraphs of the post you were responding to.
    You'd like them killed, covered in gasoline and burned.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    What makes it worse is that I've got "polyamory" in the last sentence... total brainfreeze moment
    which I missed.....
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    1 - Good, there is no reason why a piece of paper from the state should afford extra benefits.
    2 - Again, good.
    3 - Would you allow discrimination based on faith? If not, why on orientation?
    4 - So what?
    5 - And that is no business of the state.
    6 - Same again.
    7 - By this logic, single-parent adoptions or foster care should be banned, and children born into single-parent families should be taken from said single parent.
    8 - See above.
    9 - Ridiculously backward view if you think people only get married to have kids and that a change in who can get pieces of paper from the state with 'marriage' on will make people want to have kids less.
    10 - Good, if it ever comes up, I will support legalisation of polygamy too.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Don't even bother debating with him; it's like talking to a brick wall.
    I know, some people...
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a_stitch_in_time)
    Because I assume you want to get married very badly and asap.

    This 2012 and not 3000 or whatever. Things take time to change. Why the preoccupation with being married? Is it for tax? Is it because you feel not being married makes you a second class citizen/not regarded all that well? I certainly don't regard you as such. But then again you are more concerned with those who do regard you that way.

    Be logical about this. It's 2012.. your options are to take part in activism and hope for speedy change, spend some money to relocate, or reprogram your perception of how people might categorize you. 2012 has with it, just like any other lifetime, economic, sociological, political constraints.. Or do you have no interest in history (look up the history of diplomacy while you're at it and border territories) or any of those things but to get given 'your right'?! in which case, welcome to the dog eat dog paradigm. Otherwise, every country will be a welfare state. Now, a the present situation, everyone wants their rights. Others have had a head start... Others feel threatened by you, others come from less developed places and are grateful for the massive difference that relocation brings, others abuse the system, etcetc. Or simply put, the world owes nobody nothing and change takes time but everybody wants change so what will be prioritised and in what way? Now, are you in a position of power or influence? Are you loaded?


    Make the best out of situations is what I meant @ 'being smart'. There are loopholes to everything.
    Dude, I'm 18, I'm not desperate to get married any time soon! For all I know, I could end up not wanting to, but the point is, we should have the choice to marry or to not, just like any heterosexual couple. Why is it fair to have to make the best of the situation? I don't care how people perceive me, per se, I know there's a huge number of people that will hate me just cos I'm a lesbian and a huge number that won't care. It's just yet another form of discrimination; stopping a mixed race couple marrying wouldn't be allowed nowadays, so why is it fair to discriminate against us? And we do have a right to be treated like everyone else, to have equality, because we are just normal people, so why is there a set of rules restricting what we can do, governed by people who are affected in no way whatsoever by it?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darrenh800)
    I've always wanted to show a religious homophobic this and get their opinion on it. It's from the West Wing when the Catholic President argues with a religious women whom swears that she is homophobic because God calls it an abomination.

    Video

    Written version
    Yeah, that scene was pure Bartlet merkage!
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    Dude, I'm 18, I'm not desperate to get married any time soon! For all I know, I could end up not wanting to, but the point is, we should have the choice to marry or to not, just like any heterosexual couple. Why is it fair to have to make the best of the situation? I don't care how people perceive me, per se, I know there's a huge number of people that will hate me just cos I'm a lesbian and a huge number that won't care. It's just yet another form of discrimination; stopping a mixed race couple marrying wouldn't be allowed nowadays, so why is it fair to discriminate against us? And we do have a right to be treated like everyone else, to have equality, because we are just normal people, so why is there a set of rules restricting what we can do, governed by people who are affected in no way whatsoever by it?

    welcome to the real world.

    where discrimination does not only occur to women who would like to challenge the status quo (though I am sympathetic otherwise I would not have supported my friend to the extent where he fully came out, despite me still struggling with my beliefs at that time.. this was 2 years ago).

    True equality is still utopia. Man, tell me which country in the world has 100% equality?!

    Basically, the question becomes..

    what are you willing to do/how far are you willing to go, to get what you want in life?

    that's what i mean. I never said you have no right to do anything.

    Meanwhile, google 'political anthropology'. That should answer "why is there a set of rules restricting what we can do, governed by people who are affected in no way whatsoever by it?" adequately.

    There's also no straight criteria for normal. Although most people would claim to know what 'normal' entails
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's slightly off topic but its to do with what's being discussed just now. Why are people not willing to settle for civil partnerships? It gives us all the benefits of marriage - except from the fact that you can't inherit a title - and so I don't really see why we need fully fledged marriage. It seems like a lot of trouble for very few benefits.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darrenh800)
    It's slightly off topic but its to do with what's being discussed just now. Why are people not willing to settle for civil partnerships? It gives us all the benefits of marriage - except from the fact that you can't inherit a title - and so I don't really see why we need fully fledged marriage. It seems like a lot of trouble for very few benefits.
    Yeah, not quite sure when we moved from it being a choice to getting marriage equality...

    For me, it's not really about the benefits per-se. If civil partnership is practically the same as marriage, give or take, then surely we should just be allowed proper marriage. Personally, I think it sort of seems like 'yes we acknowledge that you guys deserve marriage, but we don't actually want to say you can get married/give you full equality, so we'll give you something that is practically the same but still called something entirely different, just to point out that you can't quite have marriage'. I'm not explaining it very well; someone once told me that civil partnership and marriage are just the same, so they couldn't understand why people made such a fuss, but if they're the same why do we have to have something separate?

    Also, 'civil partnership' always makes me think of something to do with business! I know that's a stupid reason, but I can't help it, just doesn't sound the same as 'marriage' does. I mean, even if things don't change and we still have civil partnerships, I'll still (if I get one obviously) call her my wife, but it would be nice if she wasn't technically my 'civil partner'

    But then, those are just the ramblings of an 18 year old that probably don't make much sense!!
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    Yeah, not quite sure when we moved from it being a choice to getting marriage equality...

    For me, it's not really about the benefits per-se. If civil partnership is practically the same as marriage, give or take, then surely we should just be allowed proper marriage. Personally, I think it sort of seems like 'yes we acknowledge that you guys deserve marriage, but we don't actually want to say you can get married/give you full equality, so we'll give you something that is practically the same but still called something entirely different, just to point out that you can't quite have marriage'. I'm not explaining it very well; someone once told me that civil partnership and marriage are just the same, so they couldn't understand why people made such a fuss, but if they're the same why do we have to have something separate?

    Also, 'civil partnership' always makes me think of something to do with business! I know that's a stupid reason, but I can't help it, just doesn't sound the same as 'marriage' does. I mean, even if things don't change and we still have civil partnerships, I'll still (if I get one obviously) call her my wife, but it would be nice if she wasn't technically my 'civil partner'

    But then, those are just the ramblings of an 18 year old that probably don't make much sense!!
    I do know what you mean, if I ever have a civil partnership then I wont call him my partner, he'll be my husband but I just personally don't see the big deal. I actually agree that it's too much hassle to let us get married. People kick up steam about nothing and just become more prejudiced against gay people. Perhaps it's different because I don't believe in God but the only things important to me is that if I ever become significantly attached to someone, they have next of kin rights and so on. I know that it is annoying knowing we have to settle for something just below marriage, but personally I'm willing to put up with it.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darrenh800)
    I do know what you mean, if I ever have a civil partnership then I wont call him my partner, he'll be my husband but I just personally don't see the big deal. I actually agree that it's too much hassle to let us get married. People kick up steam about nothing and just become more prejudiced against gay people. Perhaps it's different because I don't believe in God but the only things important to me is that if I ever become significantly attached to someone, they have next of kin rights and so on. I know that it is annoying knowing we have to settle for something just below marriage, but personally I'm willing to put up with it.
    I don't believe in God either so I'm not quite sure why I'm so attached to the idea of marriage to be honest, and I get what you mean about people kicking up a fuss about us getting marriage equality could actually cause us more problems. I guess I just have chip on my shoulder about settling for a little less than we deserve!! I suppose I'm forgetting the important thing will be that hopefully at some point I'm committed to a woman I love
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well Twin studies have ruled out there being an exclusive Genetic cause.

    At the very best it can be something in which you have a Genetic predisposition for which is then facilitated Socially.

    Middle Ground it's a purely Social phenomenon.

    Worst case scenario, it's an actual choice and those claiming it's not have become self deluded.

    Though I really don't think the latter is the case at all.
Updated: February 26, 2012
New on TSR

Join the Welcome Squad

Become a part of the TSR team!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.