The LGBT lobby claims that some people are "Gay" because they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. I have argued that if you use the standard of sexual arousal as the basis of identity, everyone is Gay - or at least no different than Gay.
But as a matter of fact, I don't believe there is such a thing as Gay.
The LGBT groups argue that sexual identity is part of a person's essential being and is not a choice. If this were so, it would be in the same class as skin color, ethnicity or (ironically) gender, as a basis for civil rights protection. They try to argue that homosexual tendencies are genetically determined though this is far from obvious in genetic studies.
They ignore (deny) the fact that people change their sexual orientation and identity. Some people who were never attracted to the same sex eventually become attracted to the same sex. Some people who once identified themselves as homosexuals later identify themselves as heterosexuals. Their own class of "bisexual" tells the tale. How can this be a genetically determined trait if a person is attracted to both genders? And what about people who are sexually aroused by even more extreme behaviors - sadism? masochism? pedophilia? bestiality? Are these also to be considered genetically determined and protected by civil rights laws? If sexual arousal is what the LGBT lobby claims, then these should be protected classes too.
People are people. They are sexual beings. Sexual arousal is not just a physical event, it involves the person's whole being... psychological, intellectual, sociological, cultural, etc. Memories, experiences, relationships - everything is involved. As a result a person can be aroused by or repulsed by different things (and people) at different times. But this cannot be the basis for a person's essential identity.
Sexual arousal is complex. We feel sexual attraction and we interpret that arousal according to our worldview. In some cases we choose to suppress our feelings for moral or pragmatic reasons. In other cases we choose to act on our feelings. A cultural or religious taboo is not necessarily a good predictor of the choices a person will make because violating a taboo might even add to the person's sense of arousal. A sense of secrecy or anonymity might also contribute to the choices the person makes since they feel safe to act on their feelings without fear of unpleasant social or relational consequences. It makes no difference at this level whether the object of your attraction is heterosexual, homosexual, etc. A man chooses whether or not to look closely at pretty women on the street, to watch revealing love scenes in movies, to fantasize about a woman at work, to view pornography on the internet, or to approach a prostitute while attending a conference out of town.
These are all moral choices. They are not aspects of essential identity.
But as a matter of fact, I don't believe there is such a thing as Gay.
The LGBT groups argue that sexual identity is part of a person's essential being and is not a choice. If this were so, it would be in the same class as skin color, ethnicity or (ironically) gender, as a basis for civil rights protection. They try to argue that homosexual tendencies are genetically determined though this is far from obvious in genetic studies.
They ignore (deny) the fact that people change their sexual orientation and identity. Some people who were never attracted to the same sex eventually become attracted to the same sex. Some people who once identified themselves as homosexuals later identify themselves as heterosexuals. Their own class of "bisexual" tells the tale. How can this be a genetically determined trait if a person is attracted to both genders? And what about people who are sexually aroused by even more extreme behaviors - sadism? masochism? pedophilia? bestiality? Are these also to be considered genetically determined and protected by civil rights laws? If sexual arousal is what the LGBT lobby claims, then these should be protected classes too.
People are people. They are sexual beings. Sexual arousal is not just a physical event, it involves the person's whole being... psychological, intellectual, sociological, cultural, etc. Memories, experiences, relationships - everything is involved. As a result a person can be aroused by or repulsed by different things (and people) at different times. But this cannot be the basis for a person's essential identity.
Sexual arousal is complex. We feel sexual attraction and we interpret that arousal according to our worldview. In some cases we choose to suppress our feelings for moral or pragmatic reasons. In other cases we choose to act on our feelings. A cultural or religious taboo is not necessarily a good predictor of the choices a person will make because violating a taboo might even add to the person's sense of arousal. A sense of secrecy or anonymity might also contribute to the choices the person makes since they feel safe to act on their feelings without fear of unpleasant social or relational consequences. It makes no difference at this level whether the object of your attraction is heterosexual, homosexual, etc. A man chooses whether or not to look closely at pretty women on the street, to watch revealing love scenes in movies, to fantasize about a woman at work, to view pornography on the internet, or to approach a prostitute while attending a conference out of town.
These are all moral choices. They are not aspects of essential identity.
We;ll expressed! I've argued a couple of the points you have written here. Thanks for tackling the topic!
ReplyDeleteWell said.
ReplyDelete