Why The Rel. Right Has To Believe Homosexuality Is A Choice

[MostlyLurks]

Please excuse if this is so basic and fundamental as to be obvious. Wouldn't be the first time I was way behind the intellectual curve.

I was wondering why the idea that homosexuality is a choice is such a big deal to religious right conservatives and why they chafe so quickly and extremely when it's argued that homosexuality is biological.

I suspect it's because, if it is biological*, this would force them to accept that God made homosexuals and therefore CANNOT righteously condemn them for being what they are. If not that, they would have to admit that God made homosexuals in error, meaning God is not infalliable. The most radical response would be to say that Satan made homosexuals, which equates Satan with God. All three of these, which I think are the only possible responses to a biological imperative for homosexuality, throw Christian catechism into utter and complete disarray. It's no wonder they border on apoplexy when the subject comes up.

* = I frankly don't care one way or the other, which is why I say "if". Haven't thought about much, don't care regardless of the answer. Somebody else's sexuality has nothing to do with me whether their choices are driven by biological or personal imperatives.

Just a random, bedtime thought.

Mostly

[Endangered Specie]

1. they 'beleive' its a choice because...

they believe sin is a choice, and believe that homosexuality is a sin. (therefore a choice). Also from a legal perspective, if its a choice then they say there is no reason for gay marriage. Being 'born with it' and would be like race or gender and they would have a harder time justifying (legally speaking) discriminating against gay people.


Most my gay friends admit they wish they could become 'straight', and I am convinced it is not a choice. and it really doesnt matter either way in my book, discrimination is simply wrong, regardless.

:rant:

[MostlyLurks]

6. But Gay Marriage Is Only A Very Recent Hot Button Issue

The biological versus personal choice argument has, if my memory is right, been around for a long time, where gay marriage has been a forefront issue for a very short time. Additionally, they've been vocally anti-gay for generations, long before the concept of gay marriage was ever even floated. I agree that the bilogical imperative argument would destroy their grounds for arguing against gay marriage, but I disagree as to whether this is a fundamental reason for their outrage over the idea that being gay is biological.

I think that basically, though, we're arguing the same thing from different perspectives. You mention that "they would have a harder time ...discriminating against gay people" and that's pretty much what I was saying. Their only options would be to 1)accept gay people or 2)find new and theologically suspect ways to explain their prejudice.

Otion 1, at the very least, throws the Bible into question, throws infalliability into question, etc. So it's a loser for them and they can't accept that option without essentially turning their entire faith on its head.

Route 2 gives them options, all of which allow them to continue to nurse what we know their anti-homosexual stance is really about: simple personal disdain for gay people (or, in some cases, guilt over repressed homosexuality).

Peace.

Mostly

[tomreedtoon]

2. Ever hear of Manicheanism?

That is the belief that Satan has the powers of creation and creativity as much as God. The Catholic Church declared this belief to be a heresy. But it seems that many conservative Christian faiths seem to accept Manicheanism. They give, no humor intended, one hell of a lot of credit to Satan for the things that they don't like.

So it's not beyond Falwell and his ilk to believe that Satan created homosexuals. And of course, that would empower them to take the next step; destroying these demonspawn.

And funny, isn't it, that all these movies about demons, vampires and the like, supposedly created by "liberal and libertine" Hollywood types, play so perfectly into the hands of the paranoids and witchhunters? Gee, maybe inciting fear is a very effective technique (for getting people into your movie or to vote for your candidate) but it has serious long-term side-effects.

[MostlyLurks]

4. "Not beyond Falwell...to believe Satan created homosexuals"

I wholly agree - I know from firsthand experience that religious rightists have a very facile understanding of how their interpretations run counter to their faith. So I think you're right when you say that would give them a "reason" to kill homosexuals.

Mostly

[shadowknows69]

13. let's extrapolate on that

what if they do accept it's a gene that you're born with and it can be detected early in a pregnancy. would the right to lifers abort a baby that was clearly brought by satan even though it's "murder"?

[MostlyLurks]

15. Ay, there's the rub, huh?

That'll be the day the religious right decides some abortions are good.

[xxqqqzme]

20. or the day their heads

finally explode from hypocrisy overload.

[MostlyLurks]

27. In my experience...

Religious fundie whackos have an AMZING adaptive ability to block out their own hypocrisy.

Mostly

[LondonReign2]

37. You assume that the Frothing Radicals would acknowledge science

Even if it was proven to the same degree that evolution is proven, the fuckwit fundies have shown that they will ignore all science that conflicts with their dogma.

Therefore, "there is no such thing as a 'gay gene'", and they'll demand that such science is excluded from science text books.

[sans qualia]

41. Interesting that you should mention them

The Manichaeans greatly informed the Gnostic conception of matter as base and profane and spirit as good and holy. I think that sort of extreme dualistic thinking is fundamental to the right's issues with homosexuality.

[RobertSeattle]

3. Religion is a Choice Too

Or in their parlance, a lifestyle decision...

[last_texas_dem]

5. I agree with you

One of my best friends is a fundie Xian and we get into this discussion pretty often since another friend in our group of friends is gay. I tell him all the evidence I know that helps to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, I try to point out the more obvious indicators that it is an inborn trait, etc., but continuously to no avail. I think many of these folks will not only go to whatever lengths to deny that there's any chance that homosexuality is biological (ignoring ample evidence that would be more than enough to convince them on most other matters) but also that, in the case of many of them, nothing short of God coming down and telling them to knock it off 'cause the made gays that way will convince them. I think that's the sad truth.

[saltpoint]

7. Your reasoning is sound because it exposes the fundies' --

-- bigotry, ignorance and hatred for what it is.

If homosexual orientation is biological, it can't be "sinful" as a God-created component of the universe.

If it's a choice, then a lot of dolphins are going to hell. Giraffes, too. Same-sex activity is not limited to humans. (Maybe Noah had a don't-ask/don't tell policy for the Ark...?)

And so what if it IS a choice? It's none of the fundies goddam business.

These folks need to stay out of others folks' underpants.

[morgan2]

21. you'll never be able to prove to them

thats its biological. Even if there is a gay gene, there will be someone with it who isnt living as a gay man. They will parade him out as a counter example.

[saltpoint]

36. I agree that they will as long as they can get away with it.

In Berlin or Amsterdam, that strategy would be laughed at out of hand and would get nowhere.

I keep crossing my fingers that the United States will eventually evolve (if I may even use that term these days...) and legislate inclusion of all citizens, no matter whom they choose to love.

[jaysunb]

8. Why ??

Because they're weak minded & believe just about anything. Just look at the people they follow......

[satireV]

9. Def: "Fundamentalism" (fund) to give cash, (amentalism) without a mind.

There have always been laws against people "mixing" with the "others."

In the USA it was against the law in many states to marry somone of another religion. Anti-miscegenation laws were common in the south as late as the 1970s.

Whenever a fundie says homosexuality is a choice and thus it is logical to prohibit rights for them, I ask them if homosexuality is a choice, doesn't that mean heterosexuality is a choice also? And when did THEY choose to be hetero?

satireV

[Old and In the Way]

11. Good one!

Welcome aboard.

[Yupster]

10. They believe the act of having homosexual sex

is a choice.

That way it doesn't matter whether you were born with the inclinations or not. Either way, you have the choice to engage in the sexual behavior or not.

[hfojvt]

34. are you saying that the act of having sex isn't a choice?

My brother got married, because in his words he "could not stop having sex with his girlfriend." Still, a very tough choice, like quitting smoking, is still a choice.
I argued that I never chose to be heterosexual, but the argument was made back to me that I was encouraged to be so at an extremely young age. So the choice may have been made without me ever remembering it. Just like I am right-handed now because my parents held down my left hand when I was learning how to use a spoon. Not something I remember, but a choice that was made for me, and one that save me from years of awkward penmanship.

[Roland99]

12. While there is evidence suggesting it's born of sexual abuse

I do believe there is something innate in some (maybe many?) homosexuals.

But, people like this just distort things beyond the imagination:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=154x481

[OrlandoGator]

14. To justify the GOP's position on gay rights, they also must believe:

- Homosexuality is a choice.
- Homosexuality is contagious and will spread to otherwise straight people if not properly contained.
- Homosexuality is inherently evil.
- Homosexual acts done in private should be illegal.

It's a truly anti-American stance to take...I can appreciate that, and I'm straight as an arrow.

[morgan2]

24. I agree

below their anti gay rhetoric, its almost implicit that homosexual sex is something so enjoyable that if we let it go on, everyone will be doing it.

[MostlyLurks]

26. "Homosexuality is contagious"

I once disarmed a friend of mine with the following:

Friend: I just have a problem with a gay teacher for my son.
Me: ...
Friend: I don't know, I just worry that maybe a gay teacher would convince him he to be gay or something.
Me: What is it with Republicans and trickle down theories? Reagan told you that making the rich people richer will trickle down to the not-so-rich, and now you're convinced that gay works the same way. "If my kid meets an authority figure who's gay, the gayness might trickle down to him!"
Friend: ...

This is not to mention that the argument is grounded absolutely in the fact that one's child is so weak-willed in their heterosexuality that argumentation and propaganda could "remove it". I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm pretty strongly hetero, and no fucking debate club tactic can change that. But that's me - I'm stubborn.

Also, as related to "Homosexuality is inherently evil.":

That's basically my point: fundies, by definition, believe in the absolute truth of the Bible. Therefore, if homosexuality is inherantly evil AND God created mankind, there's a severe theological problem that stems from homosexuality being inherant to creation. Why would God choose to create evil?

The Bible says that Satan originated evil. If homosexuality is both genetically inherant and inherantly evil, that's a problem because man is God's creation, not Satan's. It's a paradox of their beliefs. And that's why I think they *HAVE TO*, for the sanctity of their own religion, believe that what is inherantly evil be a choice by people, not something that God forces on some, because that means God is not just, righteous, infalliable or loving toward his creation.

As someone else pointed out upthread, the real problems start if and when the "gay gene" is identified. I've long hoped for that because I thought it might actually shut some of these asshats up, but since my little revelation, I've had this terrible feeling that they'll use this as leverage to advocate gay death squads ("Kill the satan spawn!") or simply refuse to accept the science (and perhaps move toward condemnation of ALL science).

Mostly

[OrlandoGator]

33. God created everything, but Satan created evil.

Um...doesn't that mean that God created Satan? And if God did create Satan, doesn't that run counter to the believe that God is infallable since His creation ended up as a failure?

Don't start me on theology.

[July]

16. And they don't want to consider that their genes contributed to this

supposed "sin" in their homosexual children.

They never satisfactorily answer the question of how their own kids became homosexuals when they (fundies) are having hissy fits over the "dangers" of gay parenting. It would be too "reality-based" a thought to note that there are homosexuals in every group in society.

[Pithlet]

17. To me, the correct response to their assertion it is a choice:

It is irrelevant. I don't care if it is a choice or not, and anyone who values their own private lives shouldn't care, either.

[MostlyLurks]

28. That Doesn't Work For One Fundamental Reason

Some may disagree with me on this, but I think a uniting principle, maybe not spoken so much as implicitly shared, is that privacy is anti-Christian. Mind you, I'm speaking of the whackos here, not the center and liberal Christians. Listen to their rhetoric about how anybody who isn't committing a crime doesn't need to worry about Patriot and such. They extend that to legal-but-"morally questionable" acts as well. They believe that a demand/need for privacy is tantamount to an admission of guilt. I think.

Mostly

[porphyrian]

18. They have a right to believe whatever the fuck they want.

They don't have a right to inflict their beliefs on us against our will.

[morgan2]

19. I think a lot of them insist its a choice

because they are gay. They have these feelings inside them they hate, and are constantly fighting themselves. Trying to kill what they hate about themselves.

[UdoKier]

22. Lust is not a choice, but who you sleep with is.

It doesn't matter whether the attraction is a choice or not. People should have the right to sleep with whom they like and not be bugged by anybody about it.


I reject the biological argument because it seems to be an attempt to say that "it's okay because God made us that way". Which is utterly offensive since nobody should have to justify their sex life to fit someone ELSE's notion of religion.

Choice or not, it is a fundamental right to love who you want, without ridicule or condemnation. PERIOD.

[MostlyLurks]

29. Did I say I cared one way or the other?

I don't care whether it's a biological imperative or a personal one. Doesn't affect me either way so I have utterly no personal preference toward one explanation or another. The OP was not about whether biological is right/wrong, it's about WHY the religious right needs to grasp to the "personal choice" argument so fervently. It's a "know thy enemy" kind of thing.

Peace.

Mostly

[Patiod]

23. To those who believe it's a choice

then why isn't the rate of male homosexuality different in different cultures? Why aren't there some cultures with NO homosexuality and some with LOTS? Why is it always consistent?

(edited b/c I the subject implied that I think it's a choice)

[MostlyLurks]

30. Why does it matter?

[Patiod]

35. Granted, a lot of people can't be argued with

Those people who think God created the world a few thousand years ago and fossils are a trick of Satan, for instance.

But there are a lot of people in the middle - they believe in God, and they think homosexuality can simply be changed if the homosexual is willing to "try" hard enough. If they could be shown that it isn't a choice, I think some of them could be moved to change their thinking and more importantly, their obnoxious behavior. Why would their God make so many people this way if it's so wrong? Should they be making life miserable for people who God made a certain way?

Personally, I don't care if it's a choice or not. I have gay and lesbian friends and relatives who I know were born that way, and I have lesbian friends who I think chose their sexuality (but it's really none of my business).

But I think it matters because there are a lot of small-minded people who could be persuaded to stop going out of their way to make life miserable for gay people if they thought that many/most gay people were "made that way by God".

It's sort of like when I worked at a country club where people treated me like garbage, then one where they were decent. The bartender informed me that the folks at the "decent" club were even worse snobs. I told him I cared what went on in their little brains only to the extent that it changed the way they treated me.

It matters whether people are born a certain way or choose to be that way only to the extent that it could change the way society treats GLBT people.

[Meldread]

25. Ha. It doesn't matter what science can prove.

I've been in debates with religious fundi's before. Several of them actually believe that dinosaurs never existed (because it isn't in the Bible). When explaining the dinosaur fossils they just wave their hand saying, "Satan put them there to confuse people and take them away from God."

I'm dead serious. It doesn't matter what evidence is shown against their views they will find some excuse. An old saying: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Our goal should not be focused on the Religious Taliban of America. It should be focused on those who can actually be swayed. As time passes the wacko bigots will be seen for what they are and will eventually fade away as the years pass. They will fall into the same radical minority group that the KKK is now in.

[Enraged_Ape]

31. I have torpedoed many a RWer with this; it's an easy shot

In 3 easy steps:

1) Ask them if they truly believe that sexual preference is a choice.

2) Then ask them when it was that THEY desired people of their own sex and then CHOSE to like people of the opposite sex instead, because it was the Godly thing to do. If they never did desire people of their own sex, then they never made the choice.

3) Then ask them who it was of their own sex that they desired.

I have shut up so many fundies with this, it's not funny. Usually you'll get a furrowed brow after step 1, because they know this isn't going to end well.

[MostlyLurks]

32. I did stand-up for a while and did a bit based on this.

Never had any punchlines for it though, so it died after a few test runs.

Mostly

[libertypirate]

38. If you want the real answer read...

"The Franklin Cover-up"

The most unlikely place to find anything is the first place we believe it wouldn't be in the first place.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. I'm convinced that those who say it's a "choice" are themselves

closeted bisexuals who have made the choice to suppress the homoerotic side of their nature.

Otherwise, how would they presume to know what goes on in the minds of millions of human beings?

Even if they're straight as straight can be, have they never had the experience of being powerfully attracted to someone whom they know is unavailable? Do they choose to get infatuated with someone else's spouse or a gay person or someone who has taken a vow of celibacy?

It's not as if heterosexuals (unless they're completely neurotic) go around saying, "I think I'll fall in love with that person."

[sans qualia]

40. Maybe because

if homosexuality were biological, it would mean that male and female are not completely distinct sets of biological and behavioral characteristics. Soooo much of their world view is based on the assumption that they are - male is the One, female is the Other, and never the twain shall meet. Challenging that belief threatens their position of power as heterosexual males (obviously not everyone on the right is male, but it's pretty much run by them ... but then so is the left) by "contaminating" them and their sex, albeit indirectly, with "inferior" female behavior.

If homosexuality is a choice, however, the threat is diminished, since then the "decision" to adopt the "gay lifestyle" is the result of a diseased or depraved mind, rather than indicative of any dangerous natural muddling of gender roles that might dispute the ontological basicness and mutual exclusivity of the sexes.

[TrogL]

42. Because it would affect their view of the Bible

In their view, the Bible condemns homosexuality (for full discussion, click links at bottom).

If homosexuality cannot be condemned because it is innate, immutable and unchangeable, then the Bible is wrong. That is unacceptable.

[Zhade]

43. That, and the threat to demographics homosexuality causes religions.

Fewer reproducing followers = shrinking base = less $$$.

[BuyingThyme]

44. One more reason (or an extension of this reason):

Without hate issues, there's very little for Evangelists to do.

If they stop professing their hatred of homosexuals, their cash flow falls through the floor.

[BuyingThyme]

45. And one last thing:

Evangelists, Republicans, the intelligence community, etc. rely on homosexuality as a tool of political blackmail.

If homosexuality becomes universally accepted, they lose that power.

[MostlyLurks]

47. I'm don't I agree that biological origin precludes hate.

As a few other people have noted, if there were a "gay gene" discovered, there is every likelihood that the religious right would (if they acknowledged it at all) claim it as a Satanic indicator. Therefore, they would still be able to use hate as a weapon against gay people. It's just that the hate would have to transform their hatred from one of "God says we should hate fags" to "We hate fags because they are Satan's children". There's not a whole lot of distinction between the two, in my opinion.

There are lots of undoubtedly biological conditions that inspire hate, the most obvious being skin color. If people can hate simply because a person is born with more/less pigment than they are, I fail to see how a "gay gene" would somehow shut off hatred of gays at the spigot. I think the issue is much more fundamentally tied to the impact biological determinants would have on creationist beliefs and the masses' picture of God.

As for the blackmail and persuasion argument, you're undoubtedly right that it is used as a means of control. However, I don't see how this would change if the answer was "biology". A gay person could still choose to closet themselves (thus making it possible to blackmail them) and the religious right could still elect to hate gay people (for whatever pseudo-scriptural reason they want), making it difficult for an openly gay person to achieve certain positions. Those are the same two reasons gay officials can be blackmailed today.

Peace.

Mostly

[Igel]

46. I think most of them haven't really thought it through.

The fundamentalists I've known that have thought about it for a few minutes usually have the following points of view.

Homosexual inclinations are natural enough; whether because of conditions in the uterus, genes, or early conditioning, it doesn't really matter. Homosexual relations are still wrong. Some tried to argue that it was more wrong than an unmarried boy and girl having sex, but others didn't rank their "sinfulness."

The idea that "God made gays gay" so it must be ok doesn't hold water, in their view. God made serial murders and sociopaths, too, made some people genetically predisposed to addictions or more violent. They can't help having a short temper, lacking empathy, etc. But they're expected to curb their behavior, the struggle to abstain from what is wrong is part of the Christian vocation. Viewing it as a lifestyle choice is part political--it's hard to stigmatize people in the current political climate for innate characteristics; and partly it's humanitarian--they want to believe that gays participating in sinful activity can more easily overcome their defects. Part is also tied up in wanting to prevent temptation (below).

One patiently explained to me that if Christ was tempted in all things that humans can be tempted by, then he was also tempted by homosexual behavior. The guy thought it was outrageous that one man was celibate and still all but hounded out of the church he had been in, while the minister's son "lapsed" rather more than occasionally with coeds at college. Whenever the argument came up, this guy--the choir director--won, hands down, within a minute. The church he was in tried to be consistent: if unmarried and not celibate, *and* it becomes common knowledge, you're asked to become celibate; if it doesn't stop, you're out; if it stops, it's like it never happened. Straight or gay, rank lay member or preacher's kid.

Most of the fundamentalists that I've talked with argue that the behavior should be illegal or at least stigmatized. Not just because they think the behavior is wrong. But because it would have the same effect that the sexual revolution had on their kids: if everybody's screwing around, how could it be wrong? If you can watch porn on HBO, why's objectifying women wrong? It's the same reason to prevent having liquor or porn stores close to high schools.

Preachers, esp. televangelists, frequently tend to be completely over the top, even when many of the rank-and-file "evangelized" are more reasonable. That's not to say all of the rank-and-file are reasonable, by any means. But a broad brush here is counterproductive.

[MostlyLurks]

48. My experience with religious rightists is different.

Your points are all well-taken and I'm not trying to say that all religious rightists are as brittle in their take on homosexuality as Falwell, et al (though I admit I do tend to use hyperbolic language in many cases in order to make my point and drum up interest in a discussion).

That said, I think there's one crucial assumption in your post that has to be mentioned. You state that "The idea that "God made gays gay" so it must be ok doesn't hold water, in their view. God made serial murders and sociopaths, too, made some people genetically predisposed to addictions or more violent.".

From my experience - and this is just mine, your mileage may vary - Christians do NOT accept that God made serial killers, sociopaths, etc. The whole "original sin" concept is that mankind was perfect, in God's image, and that mankind corrupted ITSELF through the choice to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Note that the whole issue of choice is wound into this concept. They are "nurture" not "nature" believers. They are 100% certain that the "nature" of man is divine (or somewhere in the ballpark). Remember, they believe we are created in the image of God and that God, prior to original sin, gave us his/her stamp of approval. Their faith is based, at its foundation, on the idea that every person is born in a state of near grace that is corrupted and corruptable ONLY because of man's inherantly curious nature.

They do not, in any way (your mileage may vary, etc etc) accept the notion that any aspect of one's personality or basic nature is hardwired. To them, everything is a choice. This, coincidentally, is why their dogma almost always runs away from providing choices to children (don't let them know about birth control - only let them know about abstinence; don't let them know about evolution - only let them know about creationism) This is because they put no stock in ANY biological imprimatur - that would corrupt their belief in man's Godly origins.

Finally, if the biological v. choice argument doesn't matter to them, why do their leaders argue it with such vigor? That right there, to me, points to the fact that the higher-ups realize the attendant danger to their dogma, should it be revealed as a biological drive.

What do you think?

Peace.

Mostly.

[Igel]

49. The group of fundamentalists that I wound up knowing, mostly,

didn't bother with the nuture/nature business much, they actually tended towards blaming "nature" for most things. I think their view was that humans aren't good--but at best neutral, possibly good, but mostly bad. And that a strong predisposition towards bad was mostly hardwired. Original sin, if it entered into the picture at all, dealt with how man got hardwired as s/he is. I think they'd be against the genetic theory (for want of a better term for it), but mostly because some gay activists are in favor of it.

The Baptists (?) families in the neighborhood that I knew (not southern Baptists, I think, but I didn't push the point)didn't really bother with original sin either. They seemed to think human nature was good, but also that human nature was pretty much intrinsically corrupt. They couldn't explain to me how those two points of view could be resolved, and seemed happy enough with the inconsistency.

I never really knew any Falwell-ites or people of that ilk. Can't say I missed it, and don't really meet people likely to be either seriously Baptists or Falwellian in Houston. Wrong crowd.