Homosexuality
It seems to me that the main crux of the issue on homosexuality lays in deciding if homosexuals are born homeosexual or if they become homosexual by choice or through their developmental environment. I think that each of these has very strong implications for what homosexuality means.
On the one hand, if something is an uncontrollable, unseperable part of who a person is then that would naturally cause people to have more sympathy and acceptance of said thing. Suddenly, the person is dealing with something that is out of his or her control. This necessitates that we as individuals and we as a society should seek to understand and help that person… much like we do for handicapped members of society.
If that is true than if homosexuality is successfully argued or proven to be caused by birth then anyone opposed to homosexuality is insensitive to this uncontrollable thing that might very well be a burden on the person born homosexual. Not only are they insensitive, but they are also unaccepting of that person… not their behavior. Americans tend to not like (or even… reject) people that are unaccepting of things that deserve sympathy and should therefore be accepted.
If those two tendencies are realistic then it might also be worth concluding that it would be likely that there is a strong incentive for showing that something is out of our control. Individuals do this at times to remove themselves from responsibility for things. I am an example of this. There are things that upset me rather easily, but instead of taking responsibility for controlling my own emotions I try to say that the situation is outside of my control. I do that by saying that so-and-so did something to upset me. That implies that so-and-so is responsible for my emotions and I am not.
On the other hand, if something is able to be controlled by the individual (or if it is chosen) then that causes people to feel much more justified in judging the controllable behavior. Suddenly, there is no need to feel sympathy because this is something that the individual could alter to change his or her life as he or she desires. {Also note that there wouldn’t be any sympathy if it was a choice that had no consequences}
Almost every society has placed on its members social pressures that control sexual contacts. (an example of this in America is the pressures that are put on middle and high school girls to remain chaste.) These pressures or rules have a global, social purpose for that society and do not take into account the individual in the interest of fairness to all individuals. One of the major reasons that there is often social pressure against homosexuality is that it inevitably causes a rapid drop in population over time IF all members choose that route. So, because it is not fair to allow some members of a society something that would not be good for the society as a whole to have… social pressures work to forbid that thing for everyone.
Now, if homosexuality was argued (or proven) to be a choice this would mean that people could successfully continue to put social pressure on homosexuals without being labeled as unsympathetic, because their argument could go something like this… “Hey, they are choosing to be sexually deviant from the norm and socially deviant from what society has labled as acceptable.”
I feel like these thoughts that I have put forth are part of the reason why homesexuality is argued to be a birth effect and not a choice. I think that Americans as a society are going to be OK with homosexuality for a time, because we are an individualistic soceity. I also think that the societies that are comfortable with homosexuality are societies that do not concern themself with fairness issues. I think that this is can be quicly observed by looking at a society’s tax system.
Regardless of whether you or I feel like homosexuality is right or wrong… I feel that it will eventually be accepted in any individualistic society that shows that it is comfortable with some lack of fairness — IF it can be successfully argued (or proven) that homosexuality is not (or should not be) within the realm of control of the individual homosexual.
Posted by David under Uncategorized |
Let me get this straight. American society will accept homosexuality because we are selfish and don’t care about society as a whole. Interesting argument. Consider this. What if homosexuality is a natural result of increased population density? I have no demographic evidence to support this, but it seems that homosexuality is more prominent in urban areas. What if homosexuality is a natural development to ease the stress to the population? It decreases the rate of population growth and keeps urban centers from busting at the seams. From this point of view, would homosexuality not be a benefit to society? Thusly, wouldn’t the acceptance of homosexuality be in the interest of society as a whole?
Comment by Eric — August 27, 2003 @ 4:24 am
I’ve actually heard of that theory before, and I’ve heard that it has been tested on mice. In the tests the mice would eventually have homosexual relations, but it took a lot of doing, and usually required a specific mix of male and female mice.
As for homosexuals lowering the rate population growth — To answer the question about homosexuality being in the interest of society as a whole you’d have to decide whether population growth was a social interest or not, no? Saying that homosexuality is in the interest of soceity as a whole is only correct if you are assuming that it is in the interest of society to slow population growth. Then you’d still need to have evidence showing that homosexuality causes this desired decline in population when only select members of the soceity were homosexual. I remember hearing about homosexuals wanting kids. If this is true, and if there are enough people having procreative sex then perhaps adoption would rise and there would be little to no drop in population growth.
Comment by David — August 28, 2003 @ 12:42 am
To add more to that population issue I think that it would be funny if the reason against homosexuality centered on population growth, because then a soceity could deside to allow homosexual relationships, allow homosexual families through adoption, and then link the homosexual families desiring children (through an adoptioin service) to the women who would have otherwise chosen to have an abortion because they cannot support a child. Then, in that happy little world, things could work nicely to make a lot of people happy.
Comment by David — August 28, 2003 @ 12:46 am
Xiao Lin: Wo juede na bu dui. Zhongguo mei you tai duo de tongzhi. Zhende ma?
What I tried to say…
Eric: I feel that’s not correct. China doesn’t have to much homosexuals, true?
Comment by Jordan — August 29, 2003 @ 10:17 am
China’s population density isn’t really that high. They have a large population, but it’s spread across a large area.
Comment by Eric — August 29, 2003 @ 5:02 pm
And China has a lot more homosexuals that most people would imagine (I would say around the same rate as in the world’s population). It is simply such a taboo thing in Chinese society that it is driven pretty far underground.
Comment by John — August 29, 2003 @ 7:15 pm
It’s not that far underground. They’ve just been driven to work for Taiwanese variety shows.
Comment by Eric — August 31, 2003 @ 6:53 am