The point is that the conversation needs to happen to point out when they are being idiots who gobble down this rhetoric of anti gay, anti poc, anti woman bullshit.
And I’m not doing it for him as much as his daughter and my daughter. They need to know that hating people isn’t the only option. Being gay is ok. Not being gay is ok. Being different is ok and it’s up to us to make sure people are not treated as if they are lesser because they are different. People in a position of privilege need to use that to help, not hinder those who have issues in our society.
By virtue of genetics, I’m a white guy who can’t tan. People automatically listen to me more than some other members of my family. They took more after my maternal grandmother’s side and get greeted with Spanish before English in our area. I have an obligation to speak up when people act a fool especially now that it’s become government policy to hate and ignore sound science.
If you have an obligation to speak up, your obligation surely is to speak effectively. So if you’re trying to convince children who are hearing from others that being gay is a choice and an immoral one at that, this analogy is unlikely to do anything.
This is my point: it’s an analogy that only works if you already agree with its conclusion. If you’re trying to convince kids at risk of being turned into bigots, you’re better off just exposing them to positive representation and positive talk. Getting there via an argument that only works if they don’t believe the bigotry is ineffective - or at least, it’s no more effective than just saying “being gay is OK,” while being less direct. And a smart kid who is hearing “being gay is an immoral choice” will realise that this analogy doesn’t contradict what they heard from their dad or their friend and may become harder to convince due to having heard a shit argument.
Although his argument doesn’t go in that direction, you’re mixing apples and oranges and splitting hairs.
In other words, he is NOT saying that being racist is bad and therefore being homophobic is also bad, he is not going on the moral ground.
What he is saying is that you cannot choose your skin color because it is a deterministic genetic fact that precedes any capacity for volition: your genes determine whether you will be black or white, not any decision after your birth. And he is extrapolating this to homosexuality, something that is in fact anchored in very solid evidence. There’s a reason he talks about choice: you can’t choose to be black because that’s only “decided” or determined by your genes, and the same goes for homosexuality (although I should say that there are also nuances; homosexuality also has an environmental component).
One does not choose to be black.
One does not choose to be gay.
One does not choose to be white.
One does not choose to be straight.
One does not choose to be left handed. One does not choose to have a learning disability.
These are decided by our genetic makeup and other factors outside of our control.
People do not choose one day that they want to be attracted to women instead of men. Or everyone. Or no one. Attraction is not a chosen thing just like the melanin of their skin. It just is.
This is not a moral question.
Edit: Now, on top of that information, denying that and saying people are lesser because of things they cannot control is morally fucked and deserves to be called out on. Especially when they use a set of moral standards that they do not keep and does not say what they profess it says. It’s just hatred under the guise of morality.
If I can just interject here. My hangup with the analogy is that being black doesn’t inherently change your behavior when placed amongst white people (in a vacuum. Obviously racism makes that moot.) But being gay would absolutely change your behavior compared to the straights you’re around due to attraction.
I dont think that’s what was getting his brother confused, but maybe it was part of it. I’m honestly at the point where I’m giving up on analogies, because people either get hung up on useless details like me, or they willfully ignore the entire premise.
I hate all this “for my mental peace I won’t try to change someone’s mind as they won’t change anyways”, as yeah, it’s true and all that that they won’t change themselves, but you will be able to at least change other people or prevent other people from falling into those bullshit.
They deny that sexuality is genetically determined, yes.
Also I think that is true, in that there is a statistically higher chance of younger brothers being gay than older brothers, which is unlikely to be due to genetics (and more likely due to womb environment). Anyway, the basic idea that sexuality is not a choice is important to teach people, and a better place to start than what’s in the post.
That analogy was never going to work on anyone though…
It works out the same. You can choose to be gay as much as you can choose to be black. You choose to be gay as much as you choose to be straight.
It isn’t the media you consume that makes you into what you inherently are.
The people this is targeted at don’t believe that though, so what’s the point?
The point is that the conversation needs to happen to point out when they are being idiots who gobble down this rhetoric of anti gay, anti poc, anti woman bullshit.
And I’m not doing it for him as much as his daughter and my daughter. They need to know that hating people isn’t the only option. Being gay is ok. Not being gay is ok. Being different is ok and it’s up to us to make sure people are not treated as if they are lesser because they are different. People in a position of privilege need to use that to help, not hinder those who have issues in our society.
By virtue of genetics, I’m a white guy who can’t tan. People automatically listen to me more than some other members of my family. They took more after my maternal grandmother’s side and get greeted with Spanish before English in our area. I have an obligation to speak up when people act a fool especially now that it’s become government policy to hate and ignore sound science.
If you have an obligation to speak up, your obligation surely is to speak effectively. So if you’re trying to convince children who are hearing from others that being gay is a choice and an immoral one at that, this analogy is unlikely to do anything.
This is my point: it’s an analogy that only works if you already agree with its conclusion. If you’re trying to convince kids at risk of being turned into bigots, you’re better off just exposing them to positive representation and positive talk. Getting there via an argument that only works if they don’t believe the bigotry is ineffective - or at least, it’s no more effective than just saying “being gay is OK,” while being less direct. And a smart kid who is hearing “being gay is an immoral choice” will realise that this analogy doesn’t contradict what they heard from their dad or their friend and may become harder to convince due to having heard a shit argument.
Although his argument doesn’t go in that direction, you’re mixing apples and oranges and splitting hairs.
In other words, he is NOT saying that being racist is bad and therefore being homophobic is also bad, he is not going on the moral ground.
What he is saying is that you cannot choose your skin color because it is a deterministic genetic fact that precedes any capacity for volition: your genes determine whether you will be black or white, not any decision after your birth. And he is extrapolating this to homosexuality, something that is in fact anchored in very solid evidence. There’s a reason he talks about choice: you can’t choose to be black because that’s only “decided” or determined by your genes, and the same goes for homosexuality (although I should say that there are also nuances; homosexuality also has an environmental component).
Sure, that’s not what I understood him to be saying…
I’ll be more clear:
One does not choose to be black. One does not choose to be gay. One does not choose to be white. One does not choose to be straight. One does not choose to be left handed. One does not choose to have a learning disability.
These are decided by our genetic makeup and other factors outside of our control.
People do not choose one day that they want to be attracted to women instead of men. Or everyone. Or no one. Attraction is not a chosen thing just like the melanin of their skin. It just is.
This is not a moral question.
Edit: Now, on top of that information, denying that and saying people are lesser because of things they cannot control is morally fucked and deserves to be called out on. Especially when they use a set of moral standards that they do not keep and does not say what they profess it says. It’s just hatred under the guise of morality.
If I can just interject here. My hangup with the analogy is that being black doesn’t inherently change your behavior when placed amongst white people (in a vacuum. Obviously racism makes that moot.) But being gay would absolutely change your behavior compared to the straights you’re around due to attraction.
I dont think that’s what was getting his brother confused, but maybe it was part of it. I’m honestly at the point where I’m giving up on analogies, because people either get hung up on useless details like me, or they willfully ignore the entire premise.
Based.
I hate all this “for my mental peace I won’t try to change someone’s mind as they won’t change anyways”, as yeah, it’s true and all that that they won’t change themselves, but you will be able to at least change other people or prevent other people from falling into those bullshit.
You mean that they deny genetic determinism? Well, that’s totally not true.
They deny that sexuality is genetically determined, yes.
Also I think that is true, in that there is a statistically higher chance of younger brothers being gay than older brothers, which is unlikely to be due to genetics (and more likely due to womb environment). Anyway, the basic idea that sexuality is not a choice is important to teach people, and a better place to start than what’s in the post.
Well, you have a fair point, I think.