UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 2 to Reflections on Ethics 51
They never had a choice.

by Bernardo

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

Homosexuality: the catastrophical "choice".

All homosexuals I have heard so far, on the subject of choice, have agreed. They never had a choice. I don't pretend to contradict or challenge Don's opinion in Reflection 51. In fact I am going on another direction. Not being homosexual myself I lack the first hand experience, hence I speak of what I've heard or read.

And what I have invariably heard is that, given the choice, they would never had chosen to be harassed. To doubt their sanity. To be in conflict with their religion, the views of their family, the surrounding society and the survival of the species. They would never had chosen to be insulted, segregated or questioned because of this most intimate of subjects. They simply accepted, some sooner, some later, that they were unmistakably attracted in a sexual way towards men and not women (I have not spoken with lesbians about this) as the world expected from them.

From these opinions, I gather that homosexuality is more like a personality trait, than a profession. One does not choose to be timid or outspoken like one can choose to be a lawyer or an architect. Yet this doesn't mean that homosexuality is an innate characteristic.

As far as I know, and Don seems to agree, it is not clear whether homosexuality is purely learned or physiological, or in what proportion a mixture of the two. It may not be clear soon either.

And this brings me to my question. From the viewpoint of the homosexual in relation to society, which is preferable?

If homosexuality is proven to be a learned behavior, then most people will equate it with choice and the responsibility will fall on homosexuals. Some may applaud and some may be indifferent, but there will always remain some who will satanize and abhor the decision. Those who would like to see homosexual behavior restrained will then radicalize their position, thinking that since homosexuals have a choice they must choose the "right" decision or be punished.

On the other hand, if homosexuality turns out to be purely physiological, this will relieve homosexuals from the responsibility of having chosen. They will be able to even say that either god or nature created them that way and that no physical trait has ever been considered sinful. However homosexuality may then be seen as an illness, a defect, something to be corrected. Some people would then want to "cure" them and perhaps even institutionalize them.

None of these two seems to me a desirable option, perhaps it will be best for them if we never know with scientific certainty.