Anti-gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should): Part 4

Gabriel Arana

February 13th, 2009

This is the fourth post in a five-part a series about anti-gay arguments that get the short shrift in public debate. We examine them here. Readers are encouraged to contribute to the discussion below.

#4: Being gay is a choice.

That old canard. In the past few years, the question of whether being gay is a choice has been posed to many politicians. Most recently, Gov. Sarah Palin, referring to an openly gay friend, said that being gay is “a choice I would not have made.”

It is really a two-part question. First, are homosexual feelings a choice? Second, is engaging in “homosexual acts” a choice?

1. The debate is really about whether being gay is a central, immutable component of one’s identity or whether it is malleable, subject to change. Even ex-gay therapists acknowledge that homosexual feelings aren’t chosen, but they do think you can choose to change them. Many groups — primarily religious ones, but also some professional organizations like NARTH — champion ex-gay therapy and argue that homosexuality is the product of psychological trauma during childhood (i.e. being too close to mom, not close enough to dad). Despite scientific evidence, they resist any acknowledgment of the role biology plays in sexuality, perhaps because if something is viewed as biologically encoded, then it is less likely to be changeable.

As someone who underwent ex-gay therapy for many years, I can confidently say that all the bonding time with my dad did nothing to change my sexual orientation — and there is little independent evidence that it does. Ex-gay therapists rattle off success percentages, but no one of them keeps track of how their patients do years out of therapy. To date, there are no long-term studies showing that gays can change except for the dubious Spitzer study. Many people involve themselves in the nature-versus-nurture argument about the origins of homosexuality, but it’s really academic: does it matter? Whatever the origin of homosexuality, for at least a good number of gay people, it is not something subject to change. And why change? The only reason people try to do so is because of social pressure.

One counterargument that I’ve always found slightly offensive is: if being gay were a choice, no one would choose to be gay; look, being gay is so awful and makes your life so hard. Without dismissing the actual hardship that many gay people across the country face, perhaps this response could be reformulated in a way that doesn’t make being gay sound like an affliction.

2. It is, however, a choice to engage in “homosexual acts.”

But the burden is really on those who hold anti-gay views to show why it is wrong for gay people to express themselves sexually. Sexual expression is a natural human inclination — and a basic feature of adult life. Depriving someone of this strikes at the heart of human dignity. What is interesting is that no one loves to talk about gay sex like anti-gay activists, who dissects it in vivid, pornographic detail. The disgust at things like oral or anal sex is nothing short of juvenile. It evinces discomfort with the human body; it takes the “eww” of fifth grade sex ed. and amplifies it.

Often people who say being gay is a choice refer to a ridiculous fantasy world they call the gay lifestyle — ah, those free-for-all nights of high-stylin’, drunk dialin’ on Fire Island, oral sex in Central Park, AIDS. It would be silly to deny that gays party on Fire Island or that anyone has ever had sex in Central Park, but this is not required of gay people. Gay people have stable relationships, some have families; the lifestyles of gay people are as diverse as they are for straight people. Straight sex clubs exist, straight people engage in public lewd acts. If you want to see promiscuity, go to the m4f section on Craigslist’s “casual encounters.” Yet we do not refer to this as the “straight lifestyle.” Anti-gay activists say being gay is a choice because they imagine a false dichotomy: you either live a morally upright straight life or you descend into the miasma of sex, drugs, disease and death that is the gay world. The real choice is between living a lie and not.

John

February 13th, 2009

What is interesting is that no one loves to talk about gay sex like anti-gay activists, who dissects it in vivid, pornographic detail.

Isn’t that the truth. I honestly never even heard of Folsom Street Fair, not being from San Francisco, before The Peter and folks like him started screaming about it. We probably share similiar distaste for this event, though not for the same reasons. Heck, whatever shenanigans may or may not go on at Gay Pride Parades or Fire Island I have no idea about since I haven’t been to either. They know far more about what may be the seedier side of gay life than I do which I find to be strange. Funny how they never point out the seedier side of straight life as well. At least then they’d be consistent.

CPT_Doom

February 13th, 2009

To date, there are no long-term studies showing that gays can change except for the dubious Spitzer study.

Actually even that study shoes nothing, because no one has ever demonstrated that there is ANY physiological change associated with ANY form of “reparative therapy.”

And yes, it is certainly a choice not only to engage in “homosexual acts” but also to live an open, honest and authentic life as an LGBT person. And I have every right, under the same First Amendment that protects religious lifestyle choice, to make that decision.

cowboy

February 13th, 2009

I would not use the adjective: professional for the organization NARTH.

Perhaps only Mormons can relate to this. But, I feel I chose in the pre-existence to be gay in this mortal life. I think God intended me to be just who I am. That I chose to be gay in heaven before being born here just makes some heads of Mormons explode.

The trend has been with more informed non-gay friends/associates of mine: being gay is not a choice. The younger ones generally believe that. It must be they’re more enlightened today?

I can’t imagine how someone would expect someone to suppress the need for giving and feeling love. That would be tantamount to being living in hell…tortured in hell. If there is a choice to living gay or not it’s not much of a choice…it’s a matter of how you want to express your love. If you not harming anyone…what business is it of anyone, any organization or any government how I express my love in the confines of my personal space.

Laura

February 13th, 2009

I say, “so what?”. There are many things that we choose to do that are condemned by religious scripture (including the followers of those very same religions). If those self-righteous religious nuts want to believe that it is a choice, then it is my choice to make.

Saying gay people shouldn’t be allowed to be married because being gay is a choice, is just as silly as saying people who wear yellow t-shirts shouldn’t be allowed to marry because “my bible told me its wrong” and it is a choice. So what? What does your religion have to do with my rights?

I don’t mind if they think I’m going to hell. They might as well tell me I’m going to Disneyland. I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa, ghosts, goblins and monsters and I most certainly don’t believe in the church.

The point is that my choice isn’t hurting anyone else.

AJD

February 13th, 2009

What has always gotten to me was this insinuation that it’s okay to be attracted to men, just a “nicht-nicht” to act on my feelings, and that I should instead have relationships with women for whom I have no feelings or be celibate altogether. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that to deny people the ability to express themselves sexually is an affront to human dignity.

But I concur with cowboy: I would never call an organization like NARTH “professional.”

Timothy Kincaid

February 13th, 2009

To date, there are no long-term studies showing that gays can change except for the dubious Spitzer study.

Well, there’s the Jones and Yarhouse study … which showed the opposite.

Jones and Yarhouse’s data on Exodus participants shows that the prospective portion of their study (that which did not require recollection from the past) found that there was no statistically significant change from homosexuality to heterosexuality as measured by attraction or desire. The only interesting changes in their study population were changes in identity.

Although the averages didn’t show change, they found half a dozen individuals who claimed to now be heterosexual (balanced by those who found themselves to be more homosexual as a result of their participation). Unfortunately for their message, none of these “heterosexuals” reported sexual attraction patterns that were typical to heterosexuals.

Even discounting the one who wrote the authors reporting that he had only been saying what they wanted to hear and that he had experienced no change, these new “heterosexuals” would by any unbiased measure be bisexual-on-the-gay-side at best. They reported “roaming eyes”, sex dreams, constant struggles, and a life running on a treadmill to keep where most heterosexuals find themselves by standing still.

cowboy

February 13th, 2009

One other thing:

It’s not too late to get something for someone you love.

Valentines is tomorrow. [wink]

No…I don’t work for a 1800Flowers or Ethel M. Just saying it as a reminder.

Alex

February 13th, 2009

It’s unfortunate that ex-gay organizations don’t follow up on their former clients. It would be nice to know how many people have actually “changed”…as well as how many people have attempted or committed suicide after going through an ex-gay program.

Jason D

February 13th, 2009

Choice is such an interesting argument, as it has some interesting lines of thinking extending out of it.

First of all, let’s say for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a choice. From feelings to acting on it, let’s just presume that it’s a choice. So what? I chose who I voted for president, I choose where I eat, when I sleep, which companies I apply to for a job, what college I chose to attend, and I chose how long I would stay there. People choose their religion, there is no “belief in jesus gene” as no one has ever been found completely ignorant of the Bible, it’s teachings, and it’s figures yet somehow finds themselves compelled to believe in someone called “Jesus”. Religion is a choice. Sometimes it’s a passive choice by simply finding whatever religion we are TAUGHT growing up to be sufficient(more or less), and sometimes people actively change religions — there’s a word for it: conversion. There are even ceremonies for conversion for religions, certain rites that must be carried out. Whichever political party we support is also a choice. In America, we protect choices. We love choices. We get annoyed when we are not presented with choices, or not enough choices. Freedom is about choice. If homosexuality is a choice then it is in good company alongside religion and political ideology — which are protected.

Whether or not something is a choice is irrelevent. Choice or inborn doesn’t define the worth and morality of something. Diabetes is inborn, and most would agree that diabetes is neither fun nor a positive experience at all. What does define the morality, utility of something is it’s consequences, it’s effects. Homosexuality, in and of itself harms no one. There is no inheirent dangers or pathology to it. As Dan Savage so delicately put it “HIV isn’t, you know, fire—you can’t make it just by rubbing two fags together.” There are specific activities that some homosexuals engage in (hardcore drugs, condomless sex) that are just as dangerous when heterosexuals engage in them.

Jason D

February 13th, 2009

The other thing I wanted to point out about choice is the interestingly racist/descriminatory line of thinking it runs into.

People might say “being gay isn’t like skin color, you can’t change skin color.”

Which begs the question —

“So, if black people could become white, would it then be okay to discriminate against them?”

This is an interesting point because, it sounds very much to me like some people don’t understand what’s wrong with racism. It sounds like, to me,that they think that racism is wrong because skin color can’t be changed. That we shouldn’t discriminate against black people because they can’t become white: it’s not their fault they are black. But that’s not why racism is wrong. Racism is wrong because there’s nothing wrong with BEING black.

Think about this “being gay is a choice” argument leads us:

– Having small breasts is a choice, you could have a doctor enlarge them. Therefore it’s okay to discriminate against a woman based on her breast size.

– Being Catholic is a choice, you could convert to Baptist. Therefore it’s okay to discriminate against Catholics.

-Being pale white is a choice, you could tan naturally in the sun, in a booth, or with a spray. Therefore it’s okay to discriminate against people for being too pale.

-Being bald is a choice, as there are wigs, sprays, rogaine, propecia, and surgery to cover, disguise, or replace missing hair. Therefore it’s okay to discriminate against balding men and women.

After all, you don’t have to be bald, pale, catholic, small breasted, skinny, fat, or ugly — change is possible!

Regan DuCasse

February 13th, 2009

I’ve lived my life in such a way to observe and experience, as I know you all have too: that whatever our biological legitimacy is, there will be a controlling majority who has believed you’re not as equally attractive or valued.

Hence, my flawlessly beautiful Asian friend who wanted to have surgery on her eyes. Something that appalled me and made me cry. She’d been teased and abused for being what God made her.

All the black women and men I know who suffered scalp burns and baldness from lye based straightening and process to have ‘good hair’. Nappy hair being ugly, untameable, unacceptable and certainly not something they saw on the most successful black heads.

And anorexia, becoming a cultural phenom as so many of the most glamorous, rich and socially acceptable women, have to be unnaturally thin.
Of course, a starved, artificially adolescent woman’s body, is non threatening to the power position in our society that belongs to men.

So, it’s with this in mind that I know that our cultural, social and political standards with regard to our biology are impossible and contradictory.

Those who don’t conform, will be confronted with CHANGING standards to keep meeting them impossible.
Channeling one’s homosexuality into a monogamous, adult and legally binding socially supported situation IS confronted with all manner of excuses that aren’t legal for heterosexuals to be confronted with.

I’m sure some of us are old enough to remember the freewheeling disco era of non committed casual sex, drugs and endless parties.
Studio 54 became famous for the famous who partied there.
It wasn’t a gay party, but gays were invited to it.

People who consider themselves conservative now, probably participated in that time, and traded in a more sober image and now point a finger at the gay community as never turning off the party faucet.

I’d prefer to ask: who are gay people expected to be changing for? WHY is changing so important when all of the factors regarding sexual conduct for good or bad are not exclusive to either orientation?

Believing that homosexuality LEADS inevitably to sex, drugs and disease…THAT is a myth to generate fear, and as unworthy of serious consideration or discrimination as believing BLACK sexuality inevitably leads to rape, unwed parenthood and promiscuity.

Blacks and gays have been on the receiving end of the most defamation with regard to their sexuality threatening the dominant culture and themselves.

And it’s in this context and that of said dominant culture not also accepting biological factors and the natural incidence of sexual orientation variance within ours and other species, speaks to a particular denial that’s STILL confounding openness and honesty about other minorities with a long legacy of discrimination, defamation and cultural violence against them to live down.

Making an adult individual’s common freedoms, and ability to function fully as an adult conditional on their sexual orientation IS ridiculous. Conditional that it’s ‘possible’ to change shouldn’t be contracted on that ‘possibility’.
Even as those who are heterosexual do not have to broker THEIR freedom and rights conditional on changing from promiscuity, or drug use or lack of monogamy.

Our government and society shouldn’t be paying heed to sexual orientation, but ensuring that they are not hindering a minority FROM being responsible to themselves and their kin.
Restriction a minority FROM their full potential as productive citizens because of an essential part of their sexuality that DOESN’T hinder them from their potential.

Black skin, nor gender, nor being Jewish didn’t hinder one from productivity, but prejudice against them did.

So the point is: there is no proof that homosexuality is the challenge to productivity and responsible relationships, but society’s unrealistic pressures and discrimination ARE.

They only conjecture what would happen if gay people reached full social parity. And THAT isn’t proof or factual either.
But there is ample proof that their conjectures are unfounded.

Those who are in opposition don’t have to accept homosexuality, but they DO have to accept that gay people deserve to be as free and equally designated.
Perhaps, even especially if only to prove them wrong.

But I’ve always wondered why, when the APA and all the medical psychiatric establishments, after much study and time showed and proved homosexuality for what it really is, why our society didn’t greet that as GOOD news?

After all, that’s less social and sexual reprobates they have to worry about, freeing up space in jails, and hospitals and they could move on and deal with those who really do harm to others and society as a whole.

Bill Ware

February 13th, 2009

Jason remarked: “People might say “being gay isn’t like skin color, you can’t change skin color.”

Which begs the question –

“So, if black people could become white, would it then be okay to discriminate against them?””

Good thought. I’ll put it in my debate points file, if you don’t mind.

Ephilei

February 13th, 2009

So . . . gay behavior is a choice.

We should response to the question, “Why are you pre-supposing that choice is bad?”

quo III

February 13th, 2009

Gabriel Arna: you wrote

‘Despite scientific evidence, they [NARTH, etc] resist any acknowledgment of the role biology plays in sexuality,…’

That is not correct. See NARTH’s position statements here http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html:

‘NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that “biological, psychological and social factors” shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.
…the difference is one of emphasis.’

Alex

February 13th, 2009

I just want to say, I’m really enjoying this discussion series. So many interesting and well-reasoned comments!

Gabriel Arana

February 13th, 2009

What about the rest of the quote?

“We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences–and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.”

My point is that they don’t like to talk about biology. Are there any NARTH people who study homosexuality from a biological perspective? It’s not a difference of emphasis because they completely ignore biology. And, contrary to their position statement, the APA does look at social as well as psychological factors.

quo III

February 13th, 2009

Well, it seemes to me as though NARTH does acknowledge some role for biology. That’s the meaning of their position statement as far as I can see.

Incidentally, on the issue of homosexuality and choice, see the ‘choice’ section of Wikipedia’s sexual orientation article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Choice

Timothy Kincaid

February 13th, 2009

quo,

I have a challenge for you. Find a NARTH article that discusses biology – particularly their reports about new studies or findings – that does not seek to deny, discount, or diminish the part that biology plays in establishing sexual orientation.

As for the LeVay mischaracterizations, he was not suggesting that choice was a factor, only that such a hypothesis is not yet disproved. An appeal to scientific method may be foreign to you, but let me assure you that it is not the same as an endorsement of NARTH’s pet notions.

I’ll let LeVay’s own words on the subject stand as his position:

If one looks at the totality of research now available, including my study, the evidence points strongly to the idea that genes and non-genetic biological factors strongly influence a person’s sexual orientation

quo III

February 13th, 2009

Timothy,

I actually agree with you about LeVay, and never suggested that he was saying that homosexuality is a choice. Clearly, all he said is that the idea that choice might conceivably play some role has not been absolutely disproven.

The choice section of Wikipedia’s sexual orientation article says what it does because I wrote it (for what it’s worth, I was trying to make a point against Chandler Burr, who edited the article to make it say that scientists unanimously rejected the idea that choice could play any role).

In my view I summarized what LeVay wrote accurately and fairly. Other editors seem to agree, because that section still uses the exact same language that I added.

Dave

February 13th, 2009

The post states,

Most recently, Gov. Sarah Palin, referring to an openly gay friend, said that being gay is “a choice I would not have made.”

The actual quote from Palin’s interview with Couric is:

“I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my ‘gay friend,’ she is one of my best friends who happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made.”

Just what the choice made by the governor’s friend that she herself hasn’t made isn’t clear. It is obviously related to the friend’s homosexuality, but it is going beyond what was actually said to assume the governor meant that being gay was itself that choice.

quo III

February 13th, 2009

Regarding your challenge about NARTH, I consider it rather unfair. I presume (correct me if I am wrong) that you have your own ideas about the role that biology plays in sexual orientation.

Would you find any evidence that NARTH disagrees with you proof that they “deny, discount, or diminish” the role of biology in sexual orientation?

Timothy Kincaid

February 13th, 2009

quo,

Much like I need not prove that the grass is green or the oceans are blue, I also need not prove that NARTH is dismissive of biological etiology for homosexuality. This is well understood by those of us who have followed NARTH’s opinions for years.

If, however, you wish to argue that NARTH is as open to biology as they are to psychological assumptions, then the burden of proof is yours, not mine.

I am saddened that those who participate at Wikipedia have left your language intact. It is deceptive and misleading, leaving the reader with the completely false impression that LeVay supports the premise that “choice” is one factor leading to sexual orientation when, in fact, neither LeVay nor any other researcher or social scientist supports such a premise.

It is as equally true that Gerber Strained Peas could be a cause of homosexuality, as a hypothesis could be made and is not at this time disproven. Such a ridiculous notion is also about as likely.

That you posted this information in the manner in which you did is irresponsible.

quo III

February 13th, 2009

Timothy,

The first sentence of that section of the Wikipedia article reads, “There is disagreement among scientists about whether choice could play any role in the development of sexual orientation.”

That’s a perfectly accurate and neutral statement. It indicates only that LeVay thinks that choice might possibly play a role, not that it necessarily does. The rest of that section simply consists of quotes from researchers.

The quote from Angela Pattatucci was added in June 2008 by Chandler Burr, who has edited Wikipedia using his real name. Burr’s two edits tried to suggest that scientists uniformly reject the idea that choice could play any role. I added the quote from LeVay to show that what Burr was claiming was incorrect.

Burr said he thought my edits were biased, but even so, he didn’t revert me. It’s all there in the edit history of that article for those who care (see Burr’s talk page too if you like). It may reassure you to know that I have since been banned from editing Wikipedia.

Richard Rush

February 13th, 2009

If homosexual orientation were really a choice, it would make our quest for full acceptance much more difficult, if not impossible. That is mainly because straight parents would be terrified if they believed that their children could be influenced by others to a choose homosexual orientation. And the anti-gay people prey on those fears by making the “choice” argument such a major part of their campaign strategy. And it is closely linked to the ever-popular “gays are predators” and “gays must recruit” arguments. That’s why Anita Bryant’s slogan was “Save our Children.”

While it may be annoying that such a choice would be considered unacceptable, we can thank a deity that the preponderance of evidence regarding the “choice” issue is what it is.

(And isn’t it interesting that the anti-gay deity has allowed evidence to accumulate that doesn’t support their side of the argument.)

David C.

February 13th, 2009

The third installment of this series examined the argument:

#3: Being gay is against the natural order of things; it is against evolution; if everyone were gay humanity would end.

This 4th installment turns to the argument:

#4: Being gay is a choice.

These arguments appear to be different aspects of the same fundamental claim: being gay is not something that comes about naturally.

Without rehashing installment 3 or too many of the sensible counter-arguments presented among the comments there, I think it would not be hard to make the case that arguments 3 and 4 are essentially congruent modulo naturality, and therefore, much of the counter-argument reasoning applicable to 3 applies to 4 as well. Certainly, one thread running through the remarks on 3 applies here:

Someone who genuinely believes the evangelical explanation is not going to be swayed by things like scientific evidence and common sense. —Alex (commenting on 3)

Evangelicals have in large measure rejected science and its explanations of our physical world and the biology of man and other species. They only embrace science as a smokescreen for their unreasoned positions:

It always amuses me how the die hard evangelicals, who are so horrified by the teaching of evolution, suddenly and expediently turn into Darwinites when it comes to gays. —David (commenting on 3)

So, even if sound scientific studies were able to accumulate convincing evidence of the naturality of homosexuality in man, evangelicals would continue to reject it as nothing more than “prideful artifice”.
~~

Turning to the “choice” to act on homosexual inclinations, one might conclude that this is a fallback position of those who in fact reject the naturality of homosexuality but say: “Well, even if it is natural, homosexuals don’t have to have sex”. This is of course nonsense, and the product of reasoning that somebody who wants things both ways would use. A “natural homosexual” would express sexually with a member of their own sex, and it would be “unnatural” for them to either express sexually with a member of the opposite sex or to refrain from sex altogether.

William

February 14th, 2009

“It is as equally true that Gerber Strained Peas could be a cause of homosexuality, as a hypothesis could be made and is not at this time disproven. Such a ridiculous notion is also about as likely.” – Timothy Kincaid

Timothy, the fallacious argument “if it hasn’t actually been disproved then we should take it seriously into account, even if there isn’t a grain of evidence for it” is one of quo III’s favourites, which he trots out again and again. How can you be such a meanie as to make fun of it in this way?

Timothy (TRiG)

February 14th, 2009

I strongly agree with what Jason D (above) said about “choice”. Homosexuality is morally neutral because it does no harm. Whether or not it’s a choice is completely irrelevant.

However, he’s wrong about religion. I certainly didn’t choose to become an atheist, and I could not now decide to become a Baptist, a Mormon, or a Hindu. We cannot simply decide what we believe. We are either convinced by the evidence presented, or we are not.

TRiG.

Jason D

February 14th, 2009

“However, he’s wrong about religion. I certainly didn’t choose to become an atheist, and I could not now decide to become a Baptist, a Mormon, or a Hindu.”

You didn’t, Trig?

“We cannot simply decide what we believe. We are either convinced by the evidence presented, or we are not.”

Whether you are convinced or not is your choice. You make a choice, swayed by the evidence, but you still make one. We decide to reject or accept conclusions based upon whatever evidence(or lack thereof) that we are presented with. Two people, given the same information, will come to completely different conclusions. Each of them decided to reject or accept bits of information as true, valid, convincing. If belief isn’t contingent on choice, then choice doesn’t exist.

Just look at the definition of Believe at M-W.com:
Believe
1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real [ideals we believe in] [believes in ghosts]
2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something [believe in exercise]
3: to hold an opinion : think [I believe so]
transitive verb
1 a: to consider to be true or honest [believe the reports] [you wouldn’t believe how long it took] b: to accept the word or evidence of [I believe you] [couldn’t believe my ears]
2: to hold as an opinion : suppose [I believe it will rain soon]

words like “accept”, “Conviction” and “Consider” all very big concepts for choice.

And their definition of Choose
transitive verb
1 a: to select freely and after consideration [choose a career] b: to decide on especially by vote : elect
2 a: to have a preference for b: decide [chose to go by train]
intransitive verb
1: to make a selection [finding it hard to choose]
2: to take an alternative —used after cannot and usually followed by but[when earth is so kind, men cannot choose but be happy — J. A. Froude]

Look at that, the word “Consider” is both used to help define “Choose” and “Belief”. Both a choice, and a belief are made after consideration. Thinking. Weighing pros and cons. Choice and belief go hand in hand, beliefs are big choices, but choices nonetheless.

Timothy Kincaid

February 14th, 2009

When presented with that which appears miraculous or not presently explainable by what one knows to be the laws of nature, a theist might choose to see evidence of the supernatural while an atheist might see this as something having a natural cause that is simply as yet unexplained. But both choose.

Both theists and atheists choose to believe that which cannot be definitively answered and both do so based on faith. Both have certainty in their belief when no certainty is warranted.

Ironically, they both often tend to despise the other for not agreeing with them and accepting their “evidence” as absolute.

Clayton Critcher

February 14th, 2009

But as for whether this is an argument that is actually influencing people’s attitudes…studies that experimentally vary whether they present to people that homosexuality is either a choice or not find that this does not influence attitudes toward gay issues. Instead, it seems to be homophobia that causes the belief in the freely chosen nature of homosexuality, not the other way around. This allows homophobes to reinforce their blame for gays. Addressing the choice argument–according to experimental research–won’t change attitudes.

David C.

February 14th, 2009

Addressing the choice argument—according to experimental research—won’t change attitudes. —Clayton Critcher

That’s why we can’t spend all of our time focusing on those people that just “believe” without examining the evidence. We are not tried only in their court of opinion, but in the larger court of national opinion. It is the lawmakers, decision makers, leaders of secular government, and those other opinion shapers most likely to make an objective examination of the evidence that we must reach.

For a long time, the Right has enjoyed too much access and been allowed to present their unchallenged half-truths and lies in the halls of power. They have been aided and abetted by those that have profited politically on the scourged backs of gay people. Discussions like this give us the intellectual tools we need to present ourselves in a different light, but it is up to each of us to make ourselves heard on the national stage.

Do not give lies and nonsense propaganda a pass. Talk to your friends, gay and straight, talk to them about the things you learn here, make sure they have the information they need to spread the truth, and encourage them to do it. Inspire and help others to think for themselves and to critically examine what they hear before making up their minds. Let them know that they don’t have to choose blind, hateful ignorance just because someone tells them to.

Every gay person that gives a damn about their rights needs to write their representatives at every level of government on a regular basis, and know what the opponents of fair treatment of gay people are doing, how they are doing it, and where. Series such as this one are good sources for the kinds of things that our representatives need to be hearing to neutralize the almost constant barrage of propaganda launched by the enemies of freedom for all.

Woozle

February 15th, 2009

#4: Being gay is a choice

…is really a two-part question.

Actually, there’s a third part which I consider to be more pivotal: Even if it were a choice, how does that make it wrong?

I have examined this claim in more detail here (wiki page, contributions welcome).

We do lots of things which are choices. Most of them are legal, and some are protected rights. “Being gay is a choice” is basically a non-argument, unless it is presumed that homosexuality is somehow bad. By getting away with using the “choice” argument, anti-gays are getting away with inserting this assumption of immorality under the radar, without discussion (possibly without conscious awareness of the listener).

To put the final nail in the coffin: even if homosexuality is conclusively shown to be not a choice, as the evidence does seem to show, how is that an argument either? Plenty of objectionable behavior is also “not a choice”. By answering this argument with “no it isn’t”, we’re playing into the idea that it is something which “of course” nobody would choose deliberately — a pathology to be tolerated, not a way of life to be embraced and celebrated.

This claim’s real purpose is not as a rational argument, but as a clever way to slip in the assumption that homosexuality is bad.

Clayton Critcher

February 15th, 2009

I think maybe David C. has misinterpreted my post. I am not saying that attempts to persuade on the issue of choice are not successful because these attempts are somehow countered by other propoganda. I instead I am saying that a belief that homosexuality is chosen does not actually underlie homophobia. It is instead a consequence of it. (We know this because of studies in which people are convinced that homophobia is a choice or not by an experiment…and attitudes do not change.) As such, it may not be fruitful to address this point, given that even once you convince someone of homosexuality’s non-chosen nature, it doesn’t influence their attitudes toward gays or LGB-relevant policy.

David C.

February 15th, 2009

I instead am saying that a belief that homosexuality is chosen does not actually underlie homophobia. It is instead a consequence of it. —Clayton Critcher

Agreed, Clayton. As Woozle pointed out, it is the presumption that “homosexuality is somehow bad” that underlies most anti-gay belief. The rest is politics and propaganda, the latter manufacturing the fear component and erecting walls of ignorance. The science you cite (if I am understanding it correctly) just confirms that the efforts to smear homosexuality are being effective. Though I admit, this oversimplifies the matter.

So, what I intended by my earlier remarks was to point out that those who refuse to think critically about what they are told and act solely out of blind faith or ignorance will not change their beliefs simply because science says that homosexuality is natural: they really don’t care if it is. Furthermore, they may never have enough doubt about their position to simply stop supporting anti-gay activism, let alone call into question the teachings of their spiritual leaders. And, I wanted to encourage out-reach to those whose opinions were more tractable, and just perhaps, more relevant.

Clearly, more science is needed to understand the sources and how to deal with the problem of homophobia. We need to better inform our approach to those that fear us and learn new ways to help them understand that we are not a threat to them.

Woozle

February 15th, 2009

My conclusions so far about the causes of “homophobia”:

The vast majority of anti-gay sentiment seems to be driven by powermongers seeking a target which can be successfully demonized, causing people to fear them and look to the powermongers for guidance and safety. Gays are handy bait for this sort of operation, as they are a minority whose distinguishing feature strongly pushes many non-gay people’s cultural squeamish-buttons. Squeamishness can be overcome, but it is also very easy to convert into fear and hate, and it is unfortunately easier to make money (and gain power) – at least in the short term – through fear and hate than through cooperation and understanding.

The myths, lies, and distortions surrounding homosexuality are a power structure meme: they exist solely to support powermongers who feed on anti-gay fears, and who in turn encourage those fears in order to build their power base.

David C.

February 15th, 2009

We are perhaps dangerously close to leaving the envelope of thread drift tolerated by the principals who operate this forum. Nevertheless, the arguments discussed in this series so far all seem to share the overarching principal that manifested homosexuality is bad for society, the species, and the soul. The fact that some can profit from sustaining those beliefs by whatever artifice gets them gain, power, or converts, is only one albeit significant aspect of the struggle for legitimacy faced by homosexuals.
~~

The vast majority of anti-gay sentiment seems to be driven by power-mongers seeking a target which can be successfully demonized —Woozle

To which I would respond by asking: why can homosexuals be so effectively demonized? Is it as simple as we’re different? Those that seek to divide populations to better control them often pit one group against another, but for that to work the differences need to be significant enough to distort into a threat. Whatever that threat is, to be effective it must strike very close to the visceral perception of the threatened groups’ identity and survival.

The myths, lies, and distortions surrounding homosexuality are a power structure meme: they exist solely to support powermongers who feed on anti-gay fears, and who in turn encourage those fears in order to build their power base. —Woozle

This assertion may encapsulate one dimension of the problem and describe plausible motivation for the anti-gay industry. It does not explain the fervor and intensity of belief in the “gay boogyman” the anti-gay industry and it’s operators depend on. I think something far more complex and poorly understood is going on.

Timothy (TRiG)

February 16th, 2009

“Whether you are convinced or not is your choice.”

To a point, perhaps. We can, consciously or unconsciously, be selective in the evidence we admit, but ultimately it is impossible to believe the sky is green, however much we may want to.

And the more personal integrity a person has, the less he chooses what to believe. I would rather not be an atheist, but I cannot believe something which directly contradicts the plain evidence of my senses. As much as the beliefs of liberal Christianity appeal to me, I cannot see them as true.

***

Getting back on topic: everything I wanted to say has, I think, been said, and more eloquently than I could put it.

Yes, technically, the whole “choice” argument is an irrelevant distraction. That doesn’t mean we should ignore it and allow the lies to spread. But the response should be two-pronged:

a) So what?
b) No it isn’t.

***

I used to post at the CARM discussion forums. There’s a woman there who goes under the name “christdependent”. I think she’s on commission for the publishers of After the Ball. Anyone here read that book?

TRiG.

Woozle

February 16th, 2009

To which I would respond by asking: why can homosexuals be so effectively demonized? Is it as simple as we’re different?

This is an important question, and one that I was trying to address by suggesting:

1. that many non-gay people have a somewhat “squeamish” reaction to the idea of gay sex

2. that “squeamishness” is something which can be either overcome or worsened by environmental factors — exposure to positive gay role models tending to the former, and exposure to anti-gay rhetoric tending to the latter

3. that religious leaders of a certain type (to overgeneralize a bit) stand to gain from the latter but not the former, and have sufficient power to exert the necessary influence.

(n.b. I remember having a strong “ewwww!” reaction to the idea of heterosexual sex when I first heard about it as a kid, as I suspect many kids do at first — it sounded really nasty, and who would do something so gross?! — so the squeamishness factor isn’t something unique to gay sex; it’s just that our culture says hetero sex is sometimes okay, so we get over it.)

Yes, I’m sure this is an oversimplification, but it seems to me that these are the broad brush strokes of what is at work here — and indeed with many con-lib clashes. The cons take the worst elements of human nature and work to enhance them for the benefit of “strong leadership”, while libs work to overcome them in the interests of everyone getting along and getting on with life.

I think this does explain the fervor, and why it keeps burning despite being a minority view and despite the widespread efforts to quench the flames. Further study would seem to be a good idea, of course — and this mechanism suggests a direction for such study.

Timothy (TRiG)

February 16th, 2009

I think it’s very difficult to have a neutral attitude to sex. What doesn’t turn you on disgusts you, as a general rule.

And I don’t want to think about hetero sex, thank you very much.

But, when I see a straight couple walking down the street holding hands, my mind does not immediately jump to the (to me) slightly disturbing image of the two of them in bed. Why should it? I don’t want to think about hetero sex, and, by and large, I don’t think about hetero sex.

And what if a gay couple walk down the street holding hands? Why do some straight people’s minds immediately jump to the (to them) disturbing image of the couple in bed? Is it just that gay pairings are rarer?

TRiG.

Gabe Arana

February 16th, 2009

A slight point of disagreement with Timothy (TRiG): I do think quite a few people would believe the sky were green if it suited them.

Timothy Kincaid

February 16th, 2009

I think that it may be a mistake to rely on the “so what” response to the question about choice. While this may be an effective response to secular libertarians, much of the rest of the population may not respond the way you wish.

The reason that choice is such a HUGE issue is because of the notion of sin. In Christian theology, sin can only be the result of choice. Thus, ‘no choice’ means ‘no sin’.

(Yes, yes, I know. You don’t believe in sin or God or theology or whatever… but the majority of Americans do. And they vote.)

Catholics get around this by saying that the condition is not sin necessarily, just objectively disordered. As long as you don’t engage in behavior, you’re more or less OK. (But just what OK means seems to be left up to whoever is Pope at the moment).

I think ultimately this is a losing argument for the Church because it relies on a god who assigns rules arbitrarily and capriciously – a position that flys in the face of the principles that Americans love to believe that they value: fairness and equality.

Protestants, on the other hand, aren’t as likely to parse desire from behavior. They are inclined to see them as degrees of the same thing. A chaste gay person is not much better than a pig-slut because behavior is less important than attitude. “Embracing sin” is the real problem, not what one does about it.

That’s why we see Exodus making increasingly bizzare statements about ‘Christ identity’ and ‘the opposite of homosexuality is holiness’, etc. Really, their efforts to be heterosexual are less based in changing sexual desire than they are in finding some way to make homosexuality about choice.

Given the conundrum of believing that God considers homosexuality to be sin, combined with the knowledge that they did not choose their own desires, they get creative. They “choose” to identify with Christianity rather than with homosexuality. And by so “choosing”, they avoid the sin of being gay.

But recognition that orientation isn’t choice is also the reason why liberal Protestants are getting over their anti-gay stuff. If orientation is independent of choice, it is therefore not condemned by God. (The same conclusion found by Catholics). However, they take the next step and say, “If being gay isn’t a sin, then how should a gay person live?”. And that question is gradually driving liberal Christianity towards inclusion.

So when we talk about choice with Christians (as about 75% of the population so identifies), we need to remember that what they are really discussing is whether homosexuality is sin. When talking about choice, they are less concerned with social outcomes than with religious taboo. And frankly, religious taboo can often be a more powerful contributor to decisions than an appeal to reason – even for those who don’t consider themselves particularly religious.

So it is vital that we continue to explain that orientation isn’t chosen and that it appears in most instances to be immutable. Yes, some will then leap through logical gymnastics to come up with ways to keep an innate characteristic as sin, but many more will say, “No choice, no sin, no problem”.

Woozle

February 16th, 2009

Not so much “so what?”, perhaps, but “…your point being?” or “…and therefore…?” Put the onus on them to explain why it’s important not to do something just because you can choose not to.

If you know they are a Christian, you can even say “Well, being Christian is also a choice, but I’m not trying to outlaw that.”

If you want to allow them the excuse of “God hates gays“, then consider how many hurdles this claim has to clear:

* That “God” is an actual being rather than metaphor or myth
* Which, if any, works are reliable and accurate descriptions of God’s stated opinions at the time of writing
* That those writings unambiguously show God’s disapproval of teh gays (the Bible gives mixed signals on this issue)
* What specific actions God advises taking
* Why God advises those actions
* That those opinions have not changed since they were set down (many centuries ago, in most cases) — or, in other words, how we know that this advice given to ignorant desert nomads should still apply to us in a modern, educated civilization
* why those opinions have not changed, in light of the discovery that gays do not in fact destroy civilization
* (And finally) That it is in humanity’s best interests to act on this negative opinion

Those are all legitimate issues of personal belief within the sphere of religion, so who is any Christian to insist that any one of them is unquestionably resolved?

Timothy Kincaid

February 16th, 2009

Woozle,

You make the mistake of assuming that the debate will be on your terms. But I can state without hesitation that Christians are not going to debate the existence of God with you.

You will say, “…your point being” and they will say, “homosexuality is a choice and its a sin”. Argument over. The next step is when they all march to the ballot box to vote against the heathen homosexuals who choose to defy God.

The only way we can possibly win our rights from those who vastly outnumber us is to appeal to their decency and their faith and to do so on their terms. And because their objection is to what they believe to be sin and because “choice” is the basis of sin, we have to address this issue.

We only harm ourselves when we decide that we just don’t have to deal with their objections.

Jason D

February 16th, 2009

“I think it’s very difficult to have a neutral attitude to sex. What doesn’t turn you on disgusts you, as a general rule.”

I have to disagree completely.
Some things turn me on, some things disgust me — but it’s not an either or situation. There is a third option with me, and with a lot of the people I’ve met. There’s a whole gray area in between. Things that neither turn me on nor disgust me. I’ve had partners who had desires in that gray area, and I’ve been more than happy to oblige them because ultimately, turning my partner on — turns me on. It’s what advice columnist Dan Savage calls GGG – Good, Giving, and Game.

Woozle

February 16th, 2009

TK: I see your point, and it is a valid concern — but I think you missed part of mine:

I agree that the debate will not always be on our terms, and that in many cases our best hope is to appeal to compassion and basic human decency, and hope that this will override dogma.

However, I don’t think we should let the debate be on their terms either. If we concede that rationality is not an essential ingredient of a civil discussion, then we have already lost the argument over the larger question of how disagreements are resolved — and indeed of whether society should be free or beholden to some particular ideology.

If a religious leader can use the Bible to convince his followers to hate gays, then he can use it to convince them of anything he wants. If we grant him the right to do so, then the disagreement ceases being a civil debate about what’s right or reasonable and has become essentially a power struggle. In that philosophical environment, gays are more useful as handy scapegoats (like Jews, Muslims, or Gypsies in various historical settings) than as human beings, and we have church-based feudalism instead of a free society.

I think you’re wrong about the numbers, though. My understanding is that they don’t vastly outnumber us — if by “us” we’re talking about “people who think there’s nothing wrong with being gay and are willing to defend that belief” — although it may seem that way. They just out-shout us, and are more violent. As I understand it, we are gaining ground and are probably in the majority (witness Obama’s election on a firmly gay-supportive platform, as a shining example).

If their type of thinking is allowed to claim legitimacy, though, it could easily rise once again to the highest levels of government in some future election. Civil rights cannot survive in that kind of society; I should think the last 8 years was an eloquent demonstration of this.

Appeal to decency and compassion, yes — but be careful not to concede too much philosophical ground when attempting to build such bridges, or the lords of ignorance will storm through right behind the kindly-but-devout grandmothers.

Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant, but that’s how it looks from here.

Richard Rush

February 16th, 2009

Maybe I’m wrong, but it appears to be assumed here that our debate is, or should be, directly with the most Rabid Authoritarian Theocrats (RATs). While I think we need to rebut their arguments, I think the rebuttals should be more for the consumption of those capable of some degree of rational thought. Although secular people seem already largely persuaded to favor our full equality, their is still more work to be done with moderate Christians, and then with evangelicals who haven’t descended to the RAT level. The RATs may never be persuaded in our lifetime, but eventually they will become irrelevant.

It’s something like fighting a large fire. You don’t try to fight it at the center where it is raging most fiercely. You work from the outside and move inward.

RATs such as Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber are not likely to be persuaded by anything we say. But they may be a little bit rattled by hearing a prominent evangelical make statements that show some shift in position regarding gays, as Richard Cizik did (and got himself thrown out of the National Association of Evangelicals). Recently Peter and Matt seem to have become even more shrill, hysterical, and hyperbolic in their writings. And I seem to notice more Bible references, as well. I think they sense they are losing the battle, and so their response is to try harder. I think the RATs will become irrelevant long before they are persuaded – sort of like a fire that is well under control, but still burning in a contained area.

Brandonius III

January 4th, 2010

From a confused gay christian :

“Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish,” Psalm 146:3,4

Men, who may stir up exaggerated esteem in us, are simply not worthy of the trust we can place in God. Men and women, even at their best, should not be revered as we revere God. Men can possess great charm, enjoy popularity and esteem and be exalted by their peers, yet be corrupt in character. Their corruption may lie hidden while you follow them and confide in them, to your own peril {Matt. 7:15; Phil. 3:2}.

Things are very confusing these days, people say the bible’s a book of lies, some advocate murder, others immorality, corrupt ministries, churches and governments all have hidden agendas – i don’t know whether being gay or straight is a choice but i know that abstinence is a virtue – for the corruption cannot infiltrate a heart which is only used to love, not ‘make love’.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.