TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Homosexuality is/isn't a choice.

Go To

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#726: Feb 14th 2011 at 11:19:10 AM

@kashchei:

And you're not? Everything that you've said in relation to human rights, religion, gender roles, and such is conjecture. It's arguable. It's disputed.

Yes, I know. I bring up that modern orthodoxy is only one of many philosophical systems so it can be argued which is true through dialectical reason.

It rarely works.

@Beholderess:

Still, my question stands - if homosexual people are granted full rights, who loses anything? If two conflicting views cannot be reconciled, then it makes sense to me to adopt the one that harms less people as a law. Heterosexuals are not impacted in any way by granting homosexuals full rights. While homosexuals are harmed by such denial.

I dispute that there's no harm. The state creating a new definition of marriage with no anthropological precedent stabs at the heart of the principle that the state has limited powers.

It doesn't matter if homosexual acts are bad, neutral, or good. What matters is that you can study every extant non-Western culture and every documented extinct one back to the Sumerians and you'll always find that marriage is defined as a contract between one man and one woman, one man and multiple women, or one woman and a group of brothers, for the rearing of children. That has been universal. That is our nature.

Homosexual marriage means the state is at war with the physical world in the name of equality. Claims of total power for the state in the name of an ideology are combined with struggle against flesh and blood reality. Is this starting to remind you of anything...?

edited 14th Feb '11 11:19:33 AM by Rottweiler

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#727: Feb 14th 2011 at 11:22:44 AM

It rarely works because it's not a particularly compelling argument.

Given an arbitrary enough set of premises, you can prove basically anything to be true (sometimes arising in a contradiction, which is usually evidence that one or more of your premises is wrong).

Anyway, as for the "No Harm" element, by your logic, the state shouldn't pay any attention to marriage. That is, marriage should remain fully a sacrament of religious institutions, and should grant no tax incentives, not have any impact on who you can visit in the Hospital, and a whole bunch of things that people just flat-out aren't okay with.

If you wanna take that position, fine-it's not internally inconsistent (and actually is closer to my own), but it has certain other side effects.

edited 14th Feb '11 11:25:02 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
#728: Feb 14th 2011 at 11:24:26 AM

Gay panic? Who come sup with the names for this stuff? All the more reason to make sure she's really a she before you get naked. Not sure what I could say about gay guys though.

SilentStranger Trivia Depository from Parts Unknown (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Trivia Depository
#729: Feb 14th 2011 at 11:28:20 AM

I think it was the media that covered the case that came up with it. As for gay guys, how about "theyre dudes who like other dudes"? Some of whom will be jerks, just like straight guys?

Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
#730: Feb 14th 2011 at 11:35:10 AM

[up]Well if some guy is putting the moves on a tranny and he later finds out she is actually a dude; i can kind of understand his The fuck is going on here attitude.

When it comes to gay guys a straight guy wouldn't really have justification for gay panic; it's not like they were hitting on them from the get go. if you're there to look for women you can sleep with, how would you have time to know a gay guy is eyeballing you?

Shit happens I suppose.

edited 14th Feb '11 11:35:19 AM by Kino

Chagen46 Dude Looks Like a Lady from I don't really know Since: Jan, 2010
#731: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:32:46 PM

It doesn't matter if homosexual acts are bad, neutral, or good. What matters is that you can study every extant non-Western culture and every documented extinct one back to the Sumerians and you'll always find that marriage is defined as a contract between one man and one woman, one man and multiple women, or one woman and a group of brothers, for the rearing of children. That has been universal. That is our nature.

Appeal to Tradition. Marriage is not in our nature at all. It's a societal construct that allows a couple to tell the governeing authority of the culture they live in they are a romantic unit. There is nothing about this that excludes gay marriage.

Homosexual marriage means the state is at war with the physical world in the name of equality. Claims of total power for the state in the name of an ideology are combined with struggle against flesh and blood reality. Is this starting to remind you of anything...?

See my above statement.

"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-Wraith
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#732: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:35:58 PM

What is this definition of 'natural' I keep hearing about when people say homosexuality goes against human nature? Can't mean "found in nature" because pigs, dolphins, and a bunch of other creatures engage in homosexual activity.

We come up with new stuff all the time, a the institution of marriage has gone through many transformations, one more won't be the last.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
JethroQWalrustitty Since: Jan, 2001
#733: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:37:56 PM

It doesn't matter if homosexual acts are bad, neutral, or good. What matters is that you can study every extant non-Western culture and every documented extinct one back to the Sumerians and you'll always find that marriage is defined as a contract between one man and one woman, one man and multiple women, or one woman and a group of brothers, for the rearing of children. That has been universal. That is our nature.

Wrong. Good night.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
SoberIrishman Since: Oct, 2010
#735: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:44:16 PM

I'd just like to point out that homosexuality in animals is a mistake, as all animals except dolphins and bonobos have sex for the sole purpose of reproduction. There was actually something in the news a few years back about two male penguins stealing eggs because they couldn't make them themselves.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#736: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:45:19 PM

I'm pretty sure that's begging the question, but I'm having trouble explaining how exactly.

snailbait bitchy queen from psych ward Since: Jul, 2010
bitchy queen
#737: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:46:56 PM

^ Well, that's one way to spin that.

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time
melloncollie Since: Feb, 2012
#738: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:48:16 PM

I think you mean to ask why is it considered a "mistake".

As far as I know there aren't any "mistakes" when talking about the natural world, stuff just is. It's not like some nature deity had a plan but messed up e___o.

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#739: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:49:07 PM

@Jethro: Oh please. It's extremely easy for Western intellectuals to come in and define any lasting homosexual relationship as "marriage" if it suits their ideology to. The question is whether any culture's emic (own) perspective is "this is identical to a man marrying a woman and perpetuating a family."

Show me a language with the same word for marriage as previously defined (one man and one woman, one man and multiple women, or one woman and a set of brothers) and homosexual pair bonds, and that would prove homosexual marriage has occasionally existed. Remember: emic, not etic (what an outsider declares it to be).

I also found it funny that you'd cite "It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)." to argue against the rulers of a state declaring this by fiat being an arbitrary act of will by tyrants.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#740: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:51:05 PM

Rott, give us one good reason why we should care?

Social constructs in the past basically were for economic reasons. Now, they're more for reasons related to liberty and the social and mental well being of citizens. We have evolved beyond those times.

Learn to live with it; you're arguing that homosexual marriage violates some tenant that no one other than yourself follows.

edited 14th Feb '11 12:52:21 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

snailbait bitchy queen from psych ward Since: Jul, 2010
bitchy queen
#741: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:51:41 PM

^^ Your entire argument is an appeal to tradition fallacy. There's no reason to even consider you are correct.

edited 14th Feb '11 12:52:04 PM by snailbait

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time
SoberIrishman Since: Oct, 2010
#742: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:53:25 PM

^ "Maybe if I smugly dismiss his argument, I won't have to come up with one of my own!"

snailbait bitchy queen from psych ward Since: Jul, 2010
bitchy queen
#743: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:54:29 PM

^ I've made several arguments in this thread. Think about what you say before you post it.

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time
SoberIrishman Since: Oct, 2010
#744: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:56:25 PM

I meant specifically an argument against his points.

snailbait bitchy queen from psych ward Since: Jul, 2010
bitchy queen
#745: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:57:01 PM

I have, actually. He's essentially restating the same thing over and over.

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#746: Feb 14th 2011 at 12:58:04 PM

Rott, give us one good reason why we should care?

Give me one good reason why we should care about equality?

Social constructs in the past basically were for economic reasons. Now, they're more for reasons related to liberty and the social and mental well being of citizens. We have evolved beyond those times.

Evolved? Oh please. You're no different from your ancestors of 60,000 years ago: a bipedal chimpanzee with the ability to reason.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#747: Feb 14th 2011 at 1:02:40 PM

Who said anything about equality? FUCK equality for the purposes of this argument-it's totally unnecessary.

For the purposes of this argument, it's NET social good that I'm concerned with. More people happy = better.

No Rott, I have the Internet.

edited 14th Feb '11 1:03:45 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Ettina Since: Apr, 2009
#748: Feb 14th 2011 at 1:03:12 PM

Re: 'it's a choice so you can't criticize it' I consider it morally wrong to have sex with children, even for a person biologically programmed to be attracted to kids (it appears that pedophilia is probably just as innate as homosexuality is). If you want to have sex with kids, well, I feel sympathy for you, but you still shouldn't do it.

"Does that mean we shouldn't punish murderers and rapists, because maybe they didn't have a choice when it came to their aggressive feelings?"

Maybe. I don't think there's any moral imperative to punish anyone for any action. We have a moral imperative to protect people from harm, such as murder, rape or sexual abuse. If punishment serves as a deterrent to engaging in harmful behavior, then it's morally justified. But if not, then punishment is just pointlessly hurting someone, and that's wrong. So, for example, I support jails mainly as 'spatial prophylactic' (if you're in jail you have less opportunity to commit crimes) but not as punishment, because it's been a dismal failure in deterring people from crime. I'd like to see jails run more like mental hospitals, where you're in until someone decides it's safe to release you, and treatment is readily available. Oh, and if you have characteristics indicating a very high risk that you'll commit crimes (for example, you're a psychopath) then you can be locked up even if you haven't done anything yet.

But I'm getting off topic.

I support gay rights, mainly because I don't see any moral distinction between two opposite gender adults consenting to sex with each other and two same gender adults doing so. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, but if it were, it would make no difference to me.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.
melloncollie Since: Feb, 2012
#749: Feb 14th 2011 at 1:03:27 PM

Erm... because individuals want more rights for themselves? From a self-interested view, I want the right to marry anybody I want.

Then again, if I can say with certainty that I don't want to get married, then I'd oppose state-backed marriage for anybody that can't produce kids. Taxes lawl

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#750: Feb 14th 2011 at 1:05:41 PM

@Tomu: Does septic shock from "barebacking" make the receptive partner happy?

And don't repeat "there are condoms!" line. There are personal ads specifically seeking unprotected anal sex.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Total posts: 1,046
Top