Many people - usually religious, right-wing "family values" types - claim that "homosexuality is a choice", and that one piece of legislation or another will "encourage kids to be gay".
This is the bit I don't get - even as a straight guy raised in a pretty liberal household, I've never once looked at the idea of hot gay buttsecks and thought "y'know, I think that's the sex for me!".
I'm straight and non-homophobic, but even offering tax-breaks and free ice-cream to gays wouldn't tempt me to indulge in hot man-loving.
I literally can't comprehend of someone examining their own feelings and deciding homosexuality was a choice, unless they're naturally inclined that way themselves and in viciously deep denial about it[1] ("it's got to be a choice, so I can choose not to be gay!").
So when they say that X or Y will encourage homosexuality, what they actually mean is that it will encourage people who are naturally that way inclined to not live their lives miserable, unhappy and in denial, never knowing the companionship they crave and at constant war with their own essential nature, until they become bitter and twisted by their own unrelenting self-loathing.
It therefore appears that the correct response to "Homosexuality is a choice" is "Well maybe in your case, ducky".
Posts
2 comments:
Take a hypothetical man who scores a 4 on the Kinsey scale (Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual). If such an individual were to enter a monogamous relationship they would, ceteris paribus net more utility by courting a fellow man. That said if certain bonuses were given for marrying/dating a woman instead (the right to raise children, tax breaks, not getting stoned to death, or the invisible man in the sky not condemning you to eternal damnation) he might /choose/ to go this route instead.
Now according to Kinsey the majority of people lie are bisexual to some degree or another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports). So while giving benefits to homosexuals wouldn't increase the number of people with homosexual proclivities, it could increase the number of people willing to act on said desires.
If a politician or pastor honestly believes that they can save people from hell fire by discouraging the manifestation of homosexual desires, their actions are [internally] moral. They might believe this all the more ardently if they had personally overcome their 'bi-curiosity'. Of course they're still nutters, but I think, they think they are acting in the best interest of their countrymen.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging the acceptance homosexuality and bisexuality in society. It certainly won't hurt anyone. It should be seen as normal and equal to heterosexuality, because it is! A huge benefit to society is that same-sex couples can adopt babies to give them a loving home and family.
Post a Comment