The debate over whether homosexuality is a choice (as if such a thing would be relevant to fundamental questions involving freedom) never seems to end.
Herman Cain was recently asked about choice by Joy Behar:
I mean, don’t think anybody in this world wants to be gay considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is gay. Why would you choose that?
I think that’s a poor way to put it. Regardless of who is born gay and who isn’t (I think both can happen, btw), does she really think that no one would ever choose lifestyles that bring on vilification?
Let’s change the phraseology a bit, by substituting a word:
I don’t think anybody in this world wants to be Republican considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is Republican. Why would you choose that?
Or:
I don’t think anybody in this world wants to be a Christian considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is Christian. Why would you choose that?
Or even:
I don’t think anybody in this world wants to be tattooed and pierced considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is tattooed and pierced. Why would you choose that?
I don’t know why. Because there is freedom, maybe?
My worry is that saying that people have no choice in something is a way of saying they have no freedom. The freedom to do something is just as important as the freedom not to do it.
Sometimes I think determinists want to do away with freedom.
Speaking of freedom, another question which has been vexing me is this. If a man wants to become a woman, is he free to do so, right? Or would the determinists see him as a woman who had no choice but to have been born in the body of a man, and who thus has no choice but to have sexual reassignment surgery? Really? Then why can’t a member of one race have racial reassignment procedures to become a member of another race? If I can be born into the wrong sex, then why can’t I be born into the wrong race? Why would people be born into races and sexualities, but not born into their sexes? I believe in freedom of people to be — or to try to be — whatever they want, but such inconsistencies puzzle me. I realize that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so maybe I am being a fool by posing such a question. If so, did I choose to be a fool? Or was I born that way?
After all, I don’t think anybody in this world wants to be a fool considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is foolish. Why would I choose that?
Comments
20 responses to “choice is for fools!”
Yes, freedom or “nothing left to lose”.
We are all tied to our heritage, ancestry, race, religion, sex and
body type. Most of this is predetermined. BUT today we can change some of it, so people who do not want to accept what/where the are have a choice, how the changes work is a study in psychology.
I don’t think there is freedom of choice over whether to be gay or not.
I do think there’s freedom of choice how you act. Maybe guys turn you on but you screw women to fit in or maybe women turn you on but you screw guys to fit in but I don’t see having a choice in who turns you on (maybe both), that’s visceral. Women can spot gay guys, they’re the ones who don’t immediately stare at their tits.
As for this
I mean, don’t think anybody in this world wants to be gay considering all the vilification that is brought upon someone who is gay. Why would you choose that?
I think that’s a valid comment. You bring up Christians or Republicans but it’s easier to be in places where they are the majority than where homosexuals are.
And Republicans hide themselves just as much in Dem majority areas as homosexuals do in places where they’re not welcome. Living in Alexandria, VA I just kept my comments to myself as much as possible.
Also, I’ve been hearing that comment for a long time. At least since the 80s, the first time from gay guys.
I agree with Veeshir–the questions you posed with the change in phraseology are not truly analogous to the original question.
I am a gay man, a Christian, and a Republican. I chose to be a Republican because that party’s tenets are the closest to my own personal convictions (although not completely the same). I was raised Christian, but I chose to continue being Christian when I became old enough to reasonably make those kinds of decisions (and in the face of a lot of societal pressure to change… try being a Christian Republican in a group of gay people, and you’ll see REAL hate).
Finally, I did not choose to be gay, nor can I choose NOT to be gay. My romantic and sexual attraction has always been for men, and I have never had any romantic or sexual attraction to women. The only “choice” I have is with whom I choose to have sex. I suppose I could theoretically have sex with a woman (eww!!), but only if I took a Viagra and wore a blindfold and earplugs. Even if I were successful in doing so, it would not make me straight–I would still be 100% gay. If I chose to be celibate for the rest of my life, my boyfriend would probably object, but in any case I would still be gay–just a celibate. (After all straight people who are celibate are still straight.)
Sorry about the rambling… I haven’t had enough caffeine yet today.
Slow day, huh? Sometimes you go on and on.
As to choice/destiny, perhaps it’s the devil you know. I would Never want to be a man, for instance.
Jenny
My objection to the question is the clear implication that freedom should be based on the red herring issue of whether someone would choose to do it. Freedom means just that — the freedom to do something, regardless of reasons, motives or desires, whether wanted, unwanted, inborn, or chosen.
Because this involves freedom, there is just as much of a right to be gay by choice. So I see the choice argument as condescending and irrelevant.
Are guys who like high heels born that way?
Do they choose to like high heels or do they just like high heels?
I don’t like high heels (on me), I haven’t chosen that stance, I just have it.
I do like them on women, I don’t think that’s a choice, it’s just how I feel.
Do I choose to not like brussels sprouts or do I just not like them?
I definitely choose not to eat them, but back when I was young I didn’t have a choice so I swallowed them without chewing after cutting them into quarters (after nearly choking the first time).
I don’t see anybody choosing what they like and dislike, I will accept that they choose how to act on those likes and dislikes.
As for born that way or become that way.
Yes.
Do you believe in nature or nurture?
I always answer, “Yes” to that question.
I still don’t think your likes and dislikes are a choice, but how you act on those likes and dislikes is.
The opposite of “born that way” isn’t “consciously chosen”. In fact, all the evidence we have traces homosexuality to developmental deficits or trauma.
Yet that’s not one of the options in Behar’s false dichotomy – which is just another piece of progressive agitprop.
The “born that way” myth – now disproved by science – was consciously deployed by the gay rights movement to:
a) Sidestep actual evaluation of what was until now considered dysfunctional behavior, and to
b) Morally normalize that behavior through sloppy equivalence (occurring in nature=normal/moral), and to
c) Pity-monger for political change using PC victimhood tropes. (Hence the irony of Behar’s claim: pushing for normalization of a lifestyle so awful that nobody would choose it…)
In this context the “who would choose this” trope is a misdirection. The real answer – “developmental issues from early childhood or adolescence” – isn’t included in the choices.
Progressives like Behar are looking for a new crowbar to replace the “born that way” claim, which is increasingly unsupportable.
From John Waters: “Everyone’s sex life is funny except your own. Every person’s is, and yours never is. The lengths people go to — and the extremes and the conditions and the mental exercises and guilt and shame and happiness that everybody goes through — and what they’ll do for sex is never-ending and mind-boggling and very interesting to me. And I don’t think a lot of times people choose any of it.”
In fact, all the evidence we have traces homosexuality to developmental deficits or trauma.
Who are the “we” you reference? Just a guess, but could it be those who are actively seeking a cure?
Here is a picture worth your consideration. It is the end result of your mindset, the need to find a cure for the aberrant:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_ph.php?ModuleId=10005168&MediaId=2650
In fact, all the evidence we have traces homosexuality to developmental deficits or trauma.
Who are the “we” you reference?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Anyone willing to base their opinion on actual scientific evidence rather than media pixie-dust or activist disinformation.
We – excuse, me – Scientists have mapped the human genome. Despite repeated DNA samplings of homosexuals, no statistically significant genetic pattern is associated with gayness.
Studies with identical twins reveal an abysmally low correlation for homosexuality – hovering around 50 percent, and dipping to 20 percent when twins are raised in different homes – which rules out hormonal factors during pregnancy.
…and your use of Holocaust imagery is as sick – and false – as the progressives who warned us all through the Bush administration that “they’re going to start rounding people up.”
Your post proves I was right – unable to win on facts, progressives try to shift the conversation to emotional manipulation.
Determinists don’t want to do away with freedom, because determinists believe that freedom is an illusion to begin with. They believe that you don’t actually “choose” anything, because your choices are predetermined by factors beyond your control. Therefore (to a determinist) you don’t actually have any freedom to begin with.
I realize that people care deeply about and endlessly debate what “causes” certain human behavior, but I don’t see how behavioral causation (if any) has any relevance to a basic question of human freedom.
Eric:
I don’t see how behavioral causation (if any) has any relevance to a basic question of human freedom.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
This formulation begs the question.
Throughout human history homosexuality was considered dysfunctional.
The “Born that Way” myth was hammered by the gay-rights movement in an attempt to normalize that behavior.
Now it’s been disproved – and we have several decades of solid documentation for compulsive promiscuity and other dysfunction in the gay “community”.
The immediate jump to discussion of “Freedom” – as if gay rights were OBVIOUSLY just another civil-rights issue – implicitly postulates the normalcy of homosexuality.
Which is still being debated.
We can talk about the “freedom” due to blacks because being black is normal. But we don’t talk about “freeing” alcoholics, bulimics, or other people caught in compulsive/addictive behaviors.
Nice try, though…
we don’t talk about “freeing” alcoholics, bulimics, or other people caught in compulsive/addictive behaviors.
The freedom I am talking about means freedom in the sense of being left alone. In that sense, yes, I think alcoholics should be free to consume alcohol, compulsive gamblers free to gamble, heroin addicts free to consume heroin, food addicts free to overeat, and Internet addicts free to waste their lives online.
What is dysfunctional is a matter of opinion. Again, I do not think it is relevant to a person’s inherent right to live his life as he sees fit. (Unless it infringes on the lives of others, of course.)
BTW, I not imply normalcy by speaking of freedom. Far from it; I think there is freedom to be abnormal.
Guess what, I do think a lot of people are born into wrong families, wrong backgrounds, wrong countries, wrong cultures and wrong ethnic groups/races.
Like, me.
I’m born into the wrong race. And I didn’t realize that until I was much older when I was able to handle the principles of difference racial groups that I understood why the heck I never ever liked my name, my face, my culture or anything at all. Then I found home in another culture, and unfortunately, another racial group. It is sad. It is very sad that I always feel I’m trapped in the wrong body and I’ll have to get surgeries to even begin my life, to be myself, to resume the identity I should have been given the moment I were born and may have to fight all my life for some birthrights that others usually just get for free. I hate my existence so much that I do wish I never existed, too bad I don’t have the courage to kill myself. I can feel that the skin on my face isn’t even comfortable since the bone structure is not correct to support it. I don’t think I’m ugly; it just that when I look into the mirror I know it’s not me. I know I can be quite good-looking for the race I’m born into if I get some small cosmetic surgeries, but that doesn’t solve the problem since it’s still not me. I don’t believe one race is better than another or what not, I’m perfectly political-correct on the matter of racism. All I ever wanted is to be myself. And not only is this seemingly very unacceptable for others, it is perhaps not physically/humanly possible either.
Only if I wasn’t born. Or, only if I was born who I am.
This is some great news. With a few new sites going live this is excellent information to use to make a plan of action. I just had to drop which you line to mention that i thoroughly enjoyed this post from yours, I get subscribed for a RSS feeds and have skimmed a few of your articles or blog posts before but this one really were standing out in my situation. You??ll appreciate your appreciation. Together with keep operating a blog. Thanks again guys for sharing such excellent information!
You??are??amazing! This weblog is so great. I really hope a lot more people read this and get what you are saying, ??cause let me tell you, it??s critical stuff. I never would have thought about it this way unless I would run into your web site. Thanks for sharing it. I hope you??ve excellent achievement.