As Stephanie Fairyington via the UTNE reader explains in this article,
...by choice, I don’t mean that one can choose one’s sexual propensities any more than one can choose one’s personality. What I mean is that it’s a choice to act on every desire we have, and that acting on our same-sex attractions is just as valid as pursuing a passion for the Christian faith or Judaism or any other spiritual, intellectual, emotional, or physical craving that does not infringe on the rights of others. And it should be respected as such.
Read the full article.
--
Image by Scott Bakal / www.scottbakal.com
Posts
Disappointingly poor article. Not much of an argument, just trying to ruffle feathers by saying something shocking. Also, misleading title and poor comparisons. Faith is not inborn. It is undeniably taught. Sexuality is, the author admits, completely instinctual.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't that her whole point? The instincts are probably biological, but acting on those instincts means that there is an element of choice. To me, her message was that this aspect of sexuality is completely disregarded, and society is missing out on a more nuanced conversation by disregarding that.
ReplyDeleteIf she had made a good argument, sure. But her article came off as an attempt to provoke, not to inspire conversation, and it wasn't supported by anything other than "I'm not ashamed of being gay and if I had a choice I wouldn't change."
ReplyDeleteThe most misleading aspect of the article is that by screaming out that homosexuality a "choice," she's ... See Moreinsinuating that a person can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual or whatever sexuality they happen to have. What she MEANS is that we have a choice to be sexual or not.
Technically, sure, she could choose to have sex with a man, despite being firmly on the 6 on the Kinsey scale, but she doesn't, for the same reason we don't eat things that smell putrid -our instincts tell us not to.
I have to side with Ms. Brumfeld here. Regardless of the author's intent, her argument, though not necessarily her premise, is shallow. She seems to suggest homosexuality is a choice to the contrary of her own example, quoting her near-absolute, Kinsey-sure homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteI see her argument, however: I am gay, by nature, I think, wait, I know by ... See Moredint of always feeling gay, and I choose to affirm it to those whom I love, and I likewise choose to display my sexuality openly.
I'm sorry, Ms. Fairyington, that makes you either gay by birth, nature & circumstances outside of your control, or you, personally and independently, chose to adopt that lifestyle. It's an altogether weak argument.
I believe Ms. Fairyington is dismissing homosexuality by nature far too strongly, as if it were what underpinned much of the antipathy toward the issue. However, beginning to enter the word "choice" into the debate promises to only make engaging in the discussion with others, who oppose homosexuality, more difficult.
I think the complexity of this argument is lost on most people, and I don't mean that as a put down. It's just that sexuality is now heavily regarded as part of a person's identity (which she admits) - therefore it's too personal to think of it as a "choice". It's like saying "We all experience hunger but some choose to eat candy (which leads to... See More ... See Morecavities! *gasp*)."
ReplyDeleteThis is the same kind of argument that tells teenagers that sex before marriage can lead to pregnancy, AIDS, etc. Which it can, but if you take appropriate percautions you will reduce your risk. And even that is nuance is lost on some people.
I can imagine it would be harder to advocate for tolerance and acceptance of non-heterosexual lifestyles if most people had the perception that it's choice (and a bad choice that will lead to the distruction of western civilization, blah, blah blah...), which is too complex for most people to wrap their heads around. I had a similar convo with a friend on the subject of gay (celebate) priests and if you can still be gay if you don't have gay sex....I got really confusing really quick for both of us.
Perhaps she wasn't as clear as she could have been, but it seems to me that she was trying to get people to think about the fact that the “it... See More’s a choice” vs “I was born this way” argument has nothing to do with the morality of acting on your inclinations. I think the thrust of her argument is this: "It’s a choice to act on every desire we have ... that does not infringe on the rights of others." Tomorrow, if someone found a gene that strongly predisposed someone to being a rapist, that would have no bearing on whether or not it would be moral to commit rape; raping someone clearly infringes on the rights of another and is therefore immoral. On the other hand, if tomorrow it could be proved that there actually is no genetic basis for homosexuality, having a same-sex relationship would still be perfectly morally acceptable because it does not infringe on the rights of others and it presumably brings happiness to the people involved. Fairyington clearly wants us to stop playing the “I was born this way” card, because while it may be true, it’s irrelevant to the moral question. We need to stand up and say that when we come out, express ourselves sexually, have relationships, etc., it is a choice, and it’s a perfectly moral choice. If some people are unwilling to accept this, then we need to do a better job of convincing them, not just try to play on their sympathies.
ReplyDeleteBrilliantly put, John.
ReplyDeletePut another way, one popular viewpoint today is that only human decisions can be moral or immoral. Homosexuality is out of our control, so therefore it is neither immoral nor moral. This seems to suit a lot of people, but Fairyington is arguing that this just isn't enough.
She says, and I agree, that we should be moving ... See Moretowards a tolerant society whose moral fabric protects an individual's actions if they harm nobody, and make that individual happy. Furthermore, she says, people are never going to get to this point if they can settle on the idea that homosexuality is the autism of human sexuality; accepted as a reality, perhaps tolerated, but never something to be celebrated.
Considering that philosophers have been squawking for centuries about how much choice human beings really have, or if they have any choice at all in their day to day lives, it might have been a poor strategy to employ the word "choice" in her advice for moving forwards. It gets confusing quickly.
Yet, consider cases like Jim McGrevey, the former governor of New Jersey. McGrevey was married twice, had children, and then in 2004 resigned from his post, admitting an extramarital affair with a man. He has since embraced his homosexuality. In an interview for the film Outrage, McGrevey explains that he didn't feel right for a long time about his heterosexual relationships. It took him a very long time to embrace the feelings and attractions he'd been having for a long time, but ever since, he says, he finally feels complete. That move, to embrace a homosexual identity rather than suppress it, which so many individuals act on, is the choice I think Fairyington is talking about and is indeed one to be celebrated.
Note: All of the above comments were transcribed in their entirety from feedback on Facebook.com.
ReplyDelete