So Herman Cain said this: "I think it's a sin because of my biblical beliefs... And although people don't agree with me, I happen to think that it is a choice." So he's obviously talking about being gay.
Okay so an argument we've all heard: who you want a fuck is something you choose.
Let's talk about what a choice is. A choice is something that could go either A or B with basically no coercion. I could eat at McDonald's or Burger King. That's a choice.
Okay, so the argument goes that being straight or gay is a choice - one of them tends to make God happier apparently - but that's not even what I'm worried about. I don't trade Biblical passages in these kinds of arguments. No point.
But here's what should hit hard. If sexuality is a choice, and choice is not the same as orientation, but rather on par with something like my lunch time eating decision, then here's what occurs. It means - I mean it just follows by common logic - that all straight people would just as soon fuck a man as a woman. And the ONLY reason they don't is because they choose not to do it. But they are half-gay. So if it's a choice, what Herman Cain, and every other person that's ever said this is saying, is that they're half-gay. Now, I'm fine with them being half-gay, four-fifths gay or totally (this would be 9-10 tenths gay, I think) gay. But something tells me they wouldn't be okay with this. So if being Gay is a choice, not an orientation that is what follows logically.
Here's what makes me sad - and I hope I'm not absolutely guilty of this. Being white during the Civil Rights march wasn't very difficult. You got to be moral and your difference was obvious. Everyone knew that the white people were, well, white people.
Now I can't prove this - I have no data- but I sense that one thing that's hurting the gay-rights movement is that straight people have some sort of deep-rooted fear that if they protested people would think that they were gay. Now I don't want to paint this too broadly - I mean I'm a straight guy (does it complicate my whole argument that I just said that?) who's writing this essay. And I know lots of other straight guys who would join.
There seems to be something with this particular issue that ultimately reveals all of Americas patriarchal nonsense - all of the John-Wayne-killing Indians model for masculinity. (and I like John Wayne.) My classic joke, which I know I'm stealing, is that anyone dumb enough to join the institutions of marriage or military should be allowed. But that's a joke. I don't mean it - I want a cheap laugh. What I want is for us to stop being able to say things like "I know nobody agrees with me and that all evidence points the other way and I really don't know what I'm talking about but I believe this stupid thing." Would anybody tolerate that kind of logic from their doctor? their lawyer? Someone call Zevon: we need Lawyers, Guns and Money to get us out of this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExcellent argument. Sexuality is such a complex and self-defining aspect of a person. It is simply ridiculous to boil it down to a "choice". There are multiple arguments for this, but I'll list my two favorites.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, a multitude of factors shape our identities, self-love and desire. The way our parents held us, our personal aesthetics, our culture's definition of masculinity/femininity and so on. But more than that, desire often rises up from the core of a person with little explanation. I remember suddenly getting heart flutters and feeling rushes of dopamine("fuzziness") when I was only 8 years old and would look at a specific girl across the classroom. I can completely understand another boy having the same reaction to another boy. You can't turn the dial on desire to point at the other. Enough said.
The other argument I favor is that our sexuality takes form during our adolescence, the exact period when our identities are taking root. It's easy to argue that one is part of the other. To strip ones sexuality and alter it, is to essentially tell that person to alter the core of their identity. An impossible task, thus the rise in homosexual teenage suicides.
Finally, I'll end with a note of anger, because this shit makes me legitimately furious. There seems to be two sets of 'morals': The ones that allow a society to function (ie: don't kill your friend and rape his wife); and then there is the other set, (don't do that because it makes me uncomfortable). It's flat-out wrong to muddy the two. Homosexuality can, and has, existed with no detriment to our culture. If anything, it enhances it.
-I'd like to hear a future post from you on morals, society and bigotry, if that's not too much to ask.
Ben - I like the distinction you make between the two sets of morals. That's interesting - I'd like to think more about it.
ReplyDeleteHere's another point that I can't believe I left off.
Let's say it is a choice. Even if I grant that - which is their entire argument - so what? Aren't we SUPPOSED to have choices? Isn't the RIGHT about the freedom of the individual? Well apparently not when, like you suggest, it makes them uncomfortable.
@WTTVT - I love calling everyone queer - it's hilarious - which would be justification enough - but it's also a nice move to complicate the narrative that's become normative.
ReplyDelete