••

It's the ones who have who are most afraid!

I don't know how typical my own story is, but my first flicker of sexual awareness was vaguely homoerotic. I was about 11, and I had no idea what I was feeling. Basically I saw some pictures in a comic book which, while not overtly sexual, brushed against, without pushing, some of my buttons. A while later I saw very similar pictures, but this time with a female subject, and it was very much like a light bulb going on over my head. At that moment I "got it", and, even without having the language to express it, I knew I was heterosexual. Never had even a whisper of doubt since, and thus never felt even remotely "threatened" by homosexuality.

"But being defendable doesn't make it true. "

What are you talking about? I'm talking about defending the legal arguments as to why homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against.

When I talk about choice , I talk about people having a right (inalienable if you will) to choose to be gay, to have homosexual relationships, and that being gay and in a relationship should be treated no different (in the eyes of the law) than being straight and in a relationship.

Most likely, in most cases being gay is determined by genetics or biology. We could even stipulate, for the sake of argument, that all gay people are gay because of genetics.

That may be an argument that carries some weight with people emotionally or politically, but I fear it is not an argument that gives credibility to the legal side of the case.

I'm not saying that people are gay because they choose to be gay. I'm saying that people have a right to choose to live a life that is consistent with their homosexuality. Which is to say that gay couples have the same right to get married and have kids as straight people.

Not all behaviour that is natural corresponds to a right to choose to act in a manner consistent with that nature. Being born gay and having the right to act in a manner consistent with that nature is a matter of correlation, not causation.

And arguing the issue as if there is causation, weakens the argument and leaves it open to counterpoints based on examples of natural drives that we recognize as needing to be outlawed or suppressed.

Consenting adults and no harm to others, however, is a stronger argument of legal principle.

"The argument as stated however is silly because children cannot give consent...there are issues of power and control in play in these scenarios."

But then you're presuming that consent is an issue for everyone. In the western world, and in western law, consent issues have had rather limited application until recently, and there are still places in the world where consent is a non-issue.

Which is why I am saying that the real argument is "consenting adults". Even you need to bring up the issue of consent to provide a counterargument to the Klansman I referred to. There is nothing in the "natural" argument itself that sets up a difference. Which is why I say that it's a weak argument that doesn't serve the objective of equal legal rights.  

(Oh. Donald, saw that you found that second post. It's difficult to argue this point, I know, because people often think I'm being anti-gay by saying that the "natural" argument is flawed. But I'm just very concerned that the best, most useful arguments be used to secure equal rights. For anybody. )

Pedophilia also brings along a big heaping helping of learned responses, however. In a society like ours, where "normal" sex is considered by many to be filthy and disgusting, "abnormal" sex is of course even moreso. "Abnormal" in this case meaning anything -- even simple physical attraction -- that is not "age-appropriate", heterosexual, and strictly for procreation. Preferably missionary position.

Thus, any confused individual who finds himself attracted to young girls is likely to find himself attracted to increasingly younger girls, as part of his pattern of self-loathing. So much emotional torment -- in victims and victimizers -- would surely be set aside if our society was sexually liberated enough to even be able to say "Sure, it's okay to be attracted to eleven year olds. Just don't DO anything about it!"

Most straight men think we "have" a choice. Why? Do they have a choice?

Maybe because, in certain situations, straight men do choose to have homosexual sex?

My kids have zero idea what Chuck and I actually do behind closed doors, as would a child with gay parents.

I often wonder if this plays a part in the attitudes of the past when most families lived in one room homes and privacy wasn't really an option and, as weird as it is to us, children actually did see what there parents did?