|
The following (designated in bold) are some arguments, excerpted from an email, that an acquaintance of mine has posed to me about the topic of homosexuality and its role in our society. I'm trying to piece together a comprehensive response, and I need some feedback on some of the best ways I could counter his points:
So, I want to pose something to you and get some feedback, if I could.
The whole 'homosexuality is not a choice' and/or 'it is natural' concept. Let me state, I am liberal. Note, I am not "A" liberal as you and others have hijacked the term. I am liberal. Very much so. WAY more than you from what I can glean from your writing. That being said and leaving a bit of mystery around my own opinions, I want to throw some arguments your way.
First, the 'it is not a choice' argument. You and others like you seem to be arguing that since it is not a conscious active decision you have made in your life, that is somehow meaningful. Now, I think you are gonna bash me on this as some kind of "sacrilegiously compar(ison)" (btw - that was a bit much) but here goes. Does a sociopath make a conscious and active choice regarding the activities he undertakes that the rest of us define as anti-social? I contend that he does not. So, what does that mean? That is not rhetorical, I don't get the point. What does "this is not some choice I have made, it is how I am" mean? What point are you making? I know that you are countering the idiots who equate sexual orientation to...well whatever they compare it to in order to make the argument that you are choosing to sin or whatever. My question is, what does that say about you? If I can just say, "I was made this way so that means it is inherently acceptable for me to (insert whatever action I like that you do not)..." and that means...what does that mean? What does that make you?
You seem to argue that because you are hardwired this way (which I disagree with, but there is no proof for either of us, so I will operate under your assumption) that therefore, by default, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with it. I don't think there is anything wrong with you, but I want to point out the asininity of the argument...so, because Dahmer's brain was programmed in a way that he got enjoyment from eating people, because his hardwiring was such, by default, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with it?
As far as I can tell, this is exactly what you suggest. Most likely, you will say it is sacrilegious to make such a comparison, and call me a bigot. But I ask that you put away your own bias and look at the fundamental argument: it is behavior that, whether rightly or wrongly, is anti-social (against social norms) but because it is supposedly biological or physiological in nature or origin, it is inherently and fundamentally acceptable.
There are holes you can drive a truck through in the argument if you want to take an approach like the harm the activity brings to the society, or whatever. I acknowledge this. But I am not making the argument against those things. I am asking, can you counter argue the above and support the concept that if an action, feeling or emotion is biologically driven that it is inherently “ok”.
Secondly, the "natural" argument. That 'homosexuality is natural' or that it is not 'unnatural.' Now, I take the term "natural" to mean something like, "according to natural design." Now, if you have a problem with that assumption, there isn't much more to say, but let's go with it. Now according to that definition, we can say that the natural design of sex is procreation. Yes, before you get all proud of yourself, what I am leading to would support the argument that oral sex is unnatural. Or that sex for pleasure is unnatural.
Yep, it is. It is contrary to the natural design of sex. I put forth that homosexuality is no more 'natural' than a sexual compulsion (go ahead and hit me for that one, but it fits into my argument, if you are going against natural design, I suggest that it is only compulsion that could fight a bazillion years of biology) to get it on with furniture. If we break it down into the basics, you are having sex for some other reason than reproduction. I don't give a rip what you are screwing, but you are screwing, not reproducing...
So, what the F-! is my point, you are asking...it is this:
For someone to say that they deserve preferential treatment (no matter what you say, this is what it is...unless you are willing to grant marital rights to me and my Lazyboy that I have sex with…not sure why I keep going back to sex with furniture, perhaps I have some issues there…) based on any personal preference or orientation. See, I took "choice" out of it. If you prefer to eat cheese doodles, should you have a law ensuring...anything? If I prefer sex with my chair, should I have a law guaranteeing...anything? Because you prefer sex with X, should you be granted...whatever?
Please note, I am no homo-phobe. One of my best friends in the world is a ‘flaming fag’ (his words, not mine) whom I respect, adore and love. I just enjoy arguing and like simply 'to think' above all else. I have these debates with him and his buds quite often. I am not making any claims against you as a person. I make no attack against you as a human. As long as you aren’t messing up my lawn, I don’t care what you do. I am, however, vehemently attacking your arguments, as I think they are just silly and without support or reason. Wouldn’t matter if we talking about gays or whether light is a wave or matter or whatever, this has nothing to do with you or gays. I would really be interested in your thoughts.
|