NOT born this way...

[Boogalou]

... or at least shouldn't say it. In this article (blog posting?) the author argues that the QUILTBAG community should not use the argument that they are "born that way to" to fight for equal rights and respect. In case people don't feel like reading the article, which is quite good, I will outline some of the major points:

1. Although there is some scientific evidence to support the claim people are born with their sexuality if evidence ever comes out against that it will weaken their argument and they are, as the author so elequently puts it, fucking screwed.

2. This argument is a naturalistic fallacy. Just because something something is genetically coded doesn't make it right wrong. It doesn't matter where something comes from, it matters if it is right or wrong.

3. It reinforces the idea that people need an excuse to be QUILTBAG, and thus insinuates it needs excusing. There is no serious ethical framework in which consensual same-sex romantic or sexual relationships between adults qualify as moral wrongs.

4. People's sexuality is of no concern to others or to the state and thus does not require an explanation. People do not need to defend or justify their existence.

I thought it was an interesting refutation of something that has become so common and pervasive these days and I must say I find myself agreeing. I especially agree with the second point. Just thought it might be interesting to discuss.

http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011 ... -this-way/

[lizzy]

QUILTBAG????

[Boogalou]

An acronym to be used instead of LGBTQQ2IA*

Q - Queer and Questioning

U - Unidentified

I - Intersex

L - Lesbian

T - Transgender, Transexual

B - Bisexual

A - Asexual

G - Gay, Genderqueer

Sorry, I've seen people use this term in the blogosphere and it is far easier for me to remember. I'm not sure if this is derogatory or not. If it is please let me know and I will remove it.

[jaelh]

agree 100%. "born this way" can be used against you anyway: genetic coding may predispose you towards a behaviour, it doesn't make you that person. Eg: you might be coded for mental illness, but vigilance and effort on your part will avert getting really ill. Our genetics don't make us do anything: they make our skin a certain colour, but they don't make us have sex with someone, anyone - they might do all sorts of things to encourage the behaviour, but in the end, we're talking about an action.

I know; sexual desire v action, but given many fundies reject the action, while accepting you can desire someone, I don't think explaining the desire away is helpful. At all. It's an argument you lose, even if you win.

[CanadianHippie]

I prefer LGBTQQIA myself.

That said, it sounds like the author of that article missed the boat on why the "we were born that way" argument is used. It is not an excuse, it is not an attempt to argue it is right; it is so that perhaps somewhere, someone who thinks "Love Won Out" and other such bullshit is a good thing will start thinking about it instead of listening to what some jackass preacher says about it and realize that it cannot be changed any more than someones race.

[Boogalou]

I prefer LGBTQQIA myself.

Is it just a personal preference or is it offensive? I don't really mean to offend. I don't see it very often but I have seen it used by a gay person before to refer to the community.

[Rachel333]

Someone's probably answered that already, but let's see if I can do it...

Queer/questioning U Intersex Lesbian Transgender Bisexual Asexual Gay

Can't think of U.

I definitely see their point, but it's also really important to a lot of people to think that they didn't choose to be gay. Choice does matter, even if it shouldn't, and we all make distinctions between something you chose and something you can't help. (Trivial example: I'm a vegan/sometimes just vegetarian and I've definitely gotten judgement from people because of it, whereas they're totally okay with someone who has to eat that way, whether it's because of something you sort of chose, like Hindus who don't eat meat, or something you definitely didn't choose, like lactose intolerance.) And if you could choose to be with someone of the opposite sex, that makes same-sex marriage a much less pressing issue.

For me personally, I started out thinking it was wrong to be gay (thanks mom and dad) and it was realizing that people don't choose to be gay that made me realize that teh gayz maybe aren't so bad after all (one big factor was hearing a friend talk about his gay uncle who desperately wanted to be straight and went through years of therapy that just didn't work). I went to "well, it's not okay but they're not any worse than the rest of us" to "probably not okay but gay marriage should be legal" to "maybe okay?" to "definitely just fine."

Choice shouldn't matter, absolutely, but for most people it unfortunately does.

(Not to say that "not born this way"="chose to be this way", but the issues are related.)

Edit: Ah, unidentified. I'm afraid that I'm lazy and just use LGBT most of the time, but I don't really like QUILTBAG. Nothing wrong with it, as far as I know, but if I use the long form I usually go for LGBTQIA.

[CanadianHippie]

Is it just a personal preference or is it offensive? I don't really mean to offend. I don't see it very often but I have seen it used by a gay person before to refer to the community.

For me it's a personal preference, I've never eve heard the one you used before, it took me a moment to figure it out.

[jaelh]

I prefer LGBTQQIA myself.

That said, it sounds like the author of that article missed the boat on why the "we were born that way" argument is used. It is not an excuse, it is not an attempt to argue it is right; it is so that perhaps somewhere, someone who thinks "Love Won Out" and other such bullshit is a good thing will start thinking about it instead of listening to what some jackass preacher says about it and realize that it cannot be changed any more than someones race.

Still not useful.

you're talking people realising innate preference. Many get that already. (A great many). But it doesn't actually deal with the "real" problem (you know, the sin, as opposed to the desire of the sinner... )

behaviour can be changed. At enormous personal cost, and cost to those around you sure - but still changeable.

Using the logic employed you might as well argue there is a genetic basis for.. I don't know, selfishness or lying. Wouldn't make a lick of difference to wether or not those actions were wrong. For a fundie committed to being right in their rejection of homosexuality - innate preference or genetic predisposition doesn't make a lick of difference. You'll be judged on the basis of your actions.

(If it's unclear, I'm VERY pro-Acronym. This particular argument just gets under my skin)

[emmiedahl]

I believe that gay people are born that way for the most part. (to add: Bisexuals are an interesting situation because they *can* choose to put aside a same-sex attraction; I suspect that most of the successful ex-gay crowd falls under this category.) And that is why I believe that it will never be disproven by science. The same way I don't believe that gravity will ever be disproven; for me it is obvious.

To me, it is irrelevant whether they are born that way or not. The point, for me, is that they are happy a certain way and it does not hurt anyone else so why would I have a judgment about it? People have the right to marry and spend their life with someone they love. I have a happy marriage and I think the world would be a nicer place if there were more of those.

[jaelh]

I definitely see their point, but it's also really important to a lot of people to think that they didn't choose to be gay. Choice does matter, even if it shouldn't, and we all make distinctions between something you chose and something you can't help. (Trivial example: I'm a vegan/sometimes just vegetarian and I've definitely gotten judgement from people because of it, whereas they're totally okay with someone who has to eat that way, whether it's because of something you sort of chose, like Hindus who don't eat meat, or something you definitely didn't choose, like lactose intolerance.) And if you could choose to be with someone of the opposite sex, that makes same-sex marriage a much less pressing issue.)

I know exactly the phenom. you're talking about with the veg!

But for the rest of it: what if someone is interested in same sex couplings on the basis of choice?

By pushing this "it's my genes" argument, we're selling them down the river.

As (in your not quote second para) the argument is used as an eye opener, that's awesome. More of it. But for those that are totally invested in the gay-hating? I can't see it working.

[jaelh]

I have a happy marriage and I think the world would be a nicer place if there were more of those.

qft.

[CanadianHippie]

Still not useful.

you're talking people realising innate preference. Many get that already. (A great many). But it doesn't actually deal with the "real" problem (you know, the sin, as opposed to the desire of the sinner... )

behaviour can be changed. At enormous personal cost, and cost to those around you sure - but still changeable.

Using the logic employed you might as well argue there is a genetic basis for.. I don't know, selfishness or lying. Wouldn't make a lick of difference to wether or not those actions were wrong. For a fundie committed to being right in their rejection of homosexuality - innate preference or genetic predisposition doesn't make a lick of difference. You'll be judged on the basis of your actions.

(If it's unclear, I'm VERY pro-Acronym. This particular argument just gets under my skin)

People aren't born selfish or lying. And I think you missed the rest of my post. I said the argument is about whether it is right or wrong, it is about whether ones sexual attraction can be changed or not. In this case, it cannot. Actions can change, but attraction cannot, and being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, or gender queer is more than just who you fuck at night, or what kind of clothes you wear.

[jaelh]

People aren't born selfish or lying. And I think you missed the rest of my post. I said the argument is about whether it is right or wrong, it is about whether ones sexual attraction can be changed or not. In this case, it cannot. Actions can change, but attraction cannot, and being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, or gender queer is more than just who you fuck at night, or what kind of clothes you wear.

No I got it, but my point was that attraction, immutable or otherwise, is (in the fundie line of argument) irrelevant.

Action is the issue.

Action = sin.

Attraction = something you just have to deal with in order not sin.

[Conuly]

I've thought that for a while, though, as I don't fit in with that group I normally only use it as a rejoinder to people who go "No, you're not really born that way!!!!" on internet comments.

It seems to me that saying "We're born that way", though almost certainly true, is like saying "You're right to think it's icky and weird, after all, even we would think that if we were born that way". Or at least, that's how the other people hear it. And why tell them what they want to hear? They're silly enough without doing that.

[CanadianHippie]

No I got it, but my point was that attraction, immutable or otherwise, is (in the fundie line of argument) irrelevant.

Action is the issue.

Action = sin.

Attraction = something you just have to deal with in order not sin.

There maybe fundies that think the action is the sin, but there are plenty pf people out there who still feel the attraction is the sin. Seriously, when I got involved in this myself, the idea of "the attraction isn't wrong, it's the action that's wrong" was virtually unheard of.

[Jessica]

QUILTBAG????

:lol: I thought it was an auto-correct thing at first! Ya learn somethin' new every day. :)

[Kitty]

I'm going to start using QUILTBAG, because yes, it is easier to remember.

[Boogalou]

One of the articles other problems with using "born this way", in line with the naturalistic fallacy is that there are a lot of other behaviours that there is mounting evidence that people are born that way. I am in no way saying these are on the same level morally, but there is some evidence that people can have a genetic and biological predisposition towards being a serial killer (see: James Fallon). That doesn't make it right or excusable. Which is where the article moves into discussing how under no valid moral code can homosexuality, etc. can be considered wrong because it harms no one, unlike being a serial killer which is clearly harmful. Therefore, saying something is biological does not make it right. When you say it's biological then the fundies will bring up "sin nature" and it's all down hill from there.

Anyway, as kind of a cultural constructivist (and becoming more so by the day) I am inclined to believe that homosexuality, etc. is not completely biologically driven. Take for example, the Etoro from New Guinea. Long story short, they believe men have a limited supply of semen and that using it up would drain their life force so heterosexual sex was discouraged outside of reproductive purposes. Sex acts between men (older and younger) came to be viewed as essential since it was thought young men could not produce semen on their own and had to receive it orally from other men. This has been termed "ritualized homosexuality" and is common amongst other groups in New Guinea's Trans-Fly region. Thus, I'm not really convinced it is completely biological.

[Rachel333]

It's definitely more common now to think that same-sex attraction is okay but action is not, but I think there's still more sympathy for even the actions if people think the attraction can't be helped.

But for the rest of it: what if someone is interested in same sex couplings on the basis of choice?

By pushing this "it's my genes" argument, we're selling them down the river.

Definitely. For one thing, it ignores bisexuals, who do choose. I think we should make it very clear that it's okay to be with someone of the same-sex, whether you choose to or not. I've just seen some people on both sides of the debate really push the idea that you choose to be in same-sex relationships and I think it's important to remember that being "born this way" does matter to a lot of people, whether it should or not.

I've been hearing the "yeah, maybe homosexuality is normal/genetic, but so is murder/alcoholism/whatever" argument for years, but I'm not impressed with it. There's an obvious difference between the behaviors. (Though, on a different topic, I think people with addictions could use a whole lot more sympathy than they typically get.) Not that it should matter, but I'd be surprised if homosexuality wasn't at least somewhat biological/genetic, at least for some people. Most things are. It's a pretty cool area of research to follow, and I've been fascinated by how many things are in our genes that you wouldn't really think to be.

[Guest Anonymous]

Definitely. For one thing, it ignores bisexuals, who do choose. I think we should make it very clear that it's okay to be with someone of the same-sex, whether you choose to or not. I've just seen some people on both sides of the debate really push the idea that you choose to be in same-sex relationships and I think it's important to remember that being "born this way" does matter to a lot of people, whether it should or not.

This is a quibble, really, but bisexuals don't exactly "choose" which gender of person we're going to go for today. Or at least, I don't. I fall in love with someone the same as anyone else does. For whatever reason - wiring, brain chemistry, magical unicorn (bicorn?) dust - I happen to be able to do that with a woman or a man. Just because I could fall in love with someone else doesn't mean I can flip a switch and turn love off and on according to what's more convenient. Although I have certainly wished that in the past! Straight girls of my misspent youth, why did I spend so much time crushing on you when you would only kiss me if dudes were watching?

[Rachel333]

I get that. I kept putting things after the "choose", but thinking "well, they don't necessarily choose that, so I left it at just "choose" because I do think there is an element of choice involved. You could choose not to be with women even if you've fallen in love with one and still have a happy fulfilling relationship with a man. Gay people don't have that option. (I know some people think it's terrible to do that, as you're taking advantage of straight privilege without being straight, but that's probably what I would do if I were bisexual, honestly. Homophobia can be really hard to deal with, especially when it's your own family.)

[Witsec7]

I do not mind being the B in QUILTBAG. T

[annalena]

Re: Born this way.

If God creates us, why does he create us with issues and everything, that you have to work through in order to become godly? I don't even mean sexual orientation, but things like maybe you are tempted to wear immodest clothing or something. Why do you even feel tempted? He's god, right? He could have made you just right!

[jaelh]

If God creates us, why does he create us with issues and everything, that you have to work through in order to become godly? I don't even mean sexual orientation, but things like maybe you are tempted to wear immodest clothing or something. Why do you even feel tempted? He's god, right? He could have made you just right!

eh, easy :) it's through choosing god's way that you have the oppotunity to move closer to god.

why not no free will, just make us all do right?

if that was the case, you'd never have the choice to do gods will - and wouldn't that be a pity! the journey is how you get closer to god: struggling with desire and depending on god to get you through is a blessing! hard, but the rewards great etc etc.

god doesn't just want us to do what he says, he wants us to choose to do what he says

:orcs-gayflag:

chosen cause i love that smiley :)