you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]motss-pb 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think the immutability argument is still important. I certainly don't want to be subjected to conversion therapy just because people think conversion is possible. I also don't want homosexuality to be misunderstood as a choice because people assign moral values to choices. It should be understood for what it is - an innate immutable quality that causes no harm.

I don't know to what extent pedophilia is innate or immutable, but the fact that it causes harm is what sets it apart from sexual orientation. It is a paraphilia, not a sexual orientation. Pedo activists and homophobes alike are both motivated to blur the lines between sexual orientation and paraphilia, even though the difference is obvious.

[–]soundsituationI myself was once a gay 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't know to what extent pedophilia is innate or immutable, but the fact that it causes harm is what sets it apart from sexual orientation.

Our only disagreement here is that I think this is all that matters, from a legal/utilitarian/messaging perspective. In a liberal paradigm (and just to be super clear here since these terms are all muddied now, I mean liberal as opposed to authoritarian, not conservative) it doesn't matter whether something is a choice or not, or how scandalized people are by another person's choice. All that matters is whether actions cause direct material harm and infringe on another person's rights. I believe this renders forced conversion therapy a moot threat, too, because that is an infringement on your rights, for which you committed no previous infringement of your own.

I also don't want homosexuality to be misunderstood as a choice because people assign moral values to choices.

They still do, though. The far right wants us to suck it up and make more white babies for the ethnostate (unless you're not white, in which case they want you deported or genocided, but that's another topic). The religious people want us to either stay celibate or get married/have kids with an opposite sex partner anyway, because they see homosexuality like any other sinful temptation that can and should be resisted. In both cases, our innate attraction, our desires, are beside the point; the expectation is that we align our actions with the collective ideal.

[–]motss-pb 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

it doesn't matter whether something is a choice or not

I think when you depict homosexuality as a choice, you invite the homosexuality = bigotry argument. Why can't lesbians simply choose to like dick? Choices can be influenced by bigotry. Even if all that matters is whether harm is caused or not, we now have a debate over whether homosexuality is inherently harmful (i.e. the TRA argument of how same-sex attraction is bigotry)

[–]soundsituationI myself was once a gay 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well in that case no one except a non-monogamous pansexual open to an infinite amount of partners, regardless of whether or not they are attracted to them, can escape the bigotry accusation. It's too ridiculous to hold water when taken to its natural conclusion. There's also the issue of "Why can't you?" vs "Why should I have to?" I'm wearing a gray shirt today. Why can't I just wear a yellow one? The fact is that I didn't want to, and that's reason enough.