On acceptance...

[alexpgp]

I'm not quite sure how I arrived at this page at a site called Le Projet, I think it may have been via someone posting a comment to an entry in one of my LJ friends' journals. The author of the essay at Le Projet considers the issue of whether one can, in good conscience, keep an Eagle Scout badge if one is opposed to the BSA's practice of selective membership based upon sexual orientation.

I stopped for a while on the following:

Do I "accept" homosexuals now? No. The very term "accept" means an inherent passage of judgment, something I consider to be wrong in this case. In order to accept homosexuals, I have to believe that what they are doing is inherently wrong, so much so that I feel the need to condescend below my standards, moral or otherwise, in order to deal with them as people.

I go along with the idea that "to accept" implies an inherent judgment; it's part of the real estate that comes with the word.

That's what causes me to disagree with the author's qualification that such a judgment is wrong in this case, and further, it gets me to wondering whether the last sentence makes sense, and if so, then how much? (My gut feeling about these two issues run along the lines of "it doesn't" and "not much," respectively.)

<freewheel>
One can define one's life in terms of a stream of decisions, taken in an almost continuous manner, to accept things or not to accept them. In reading these words, you may decide to continue to read these words - thereby accepting the status quo of your surroundings and condition - or you may decide that, say, it is not acceptable to let the phone continue to ring (assuming it has been ringing while you're reading this), or you may decide that it would be more acceptable to hit PageDown, pick up the phone to call your best friend, go to the bathroom to relieve the pressure in your bladder, or whatever.

Clearly, then, acceptance by itself is not something you do because you believe that what you're accepting is wrong. However, the acceptance described in the previous paragraph is acceptance done unconsciously, without verbalization of the fact to others.

What, then, shall we make of statements - when communicated to others - along the lines of "I accept X"? Obviously, we can conclude that the speaker felt strongly enough about the issue to speak. Let's try a few substitutions for X:

I accept homosexuals.

I accept heterosexuals.

I accept blacks.

I accept vegetarians.

I accept born-again Christians.

There would appear to be at least two major ways to interpret these utterances. First, as responses to questions along the lines of "What do you think of X?" I think it's safe to say that such responses are equivalent to "I have nothing against X."

The second interpretation relies on the sentence being short for: "I have come to accept X." This is so, in my opinion, as otherwise, there would be little reason to make a public issue of one's acceptance (unless one is answering a question, as considered in the previous paragraph, or deliberately trying to mask one's hypocrisy, but that's a completely different ball of wax).

The meaning of "I have come to accept X" be restated as: "I have changed my mind about X." So I would argue that someone coming out and saying "I accept homosexuals" in this sense must have come to believe that homosexuality is not inherently wrong. Is this so bad?

At any rate, it would appear to be the exact opposite of what the author of the essay that kicked off this freewheel had to say, no?
</freewheel>

Cheers...

Comments

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

The post you cite takes as its basic premise that homosexuality is an issue exactly like race. It is part o the political strategy of muc of the Gay rights movement.

The idea is that, like race, homosexuality is an irrelevant characteristic and that anything that inconveniences gays or distinguishes them from straights in any way whatever is not only wrong but is and ought to be obviously wrong. By that I mean that the intent is to forbid any suggestion that anything proposed by the Gary Rights is arguable. To argue is to be a homophobe to be a homophobe is to be the exact equivalent of Adolph Hitler.

Thus even the mildest suggestion that homosexuality is in any way top be distinquished from heterosexuality is jumped on with all the ludicrous vigor that the post you cite musters.

This is, of course, nonsense. Homosexuality is natural occuring but the bottom line is that it is not natural. To return to the race analogy; a world in which everyone were one race would entail no change to any useful institution or re-ordering of the structure of society. But a world in which everyone were homosexual would require drastic change to create a viable society.

[angrymustard.livejournal.com]

When arguing against gay marriage (and in general defense of standard marriage) for liberals, when the issue of natural vs. unnatural is brought up, the issue then becomes: what is natural? Of course, the question in my mind is obtuse and rhetorical. Rather, we must ask why is it unnatural? Then we can get somewhere.

For some it might be easier to simply state "my religion forbids it, therefor it is wrong." That's the easy way out - obsolving the said speaker of any reason to continue the argument. (I'm looking for the term to describe this sort of argument closer, but it's not coming to mind. Deus Ex Machina perhaps?)

Most homosexuals and pro-gay organizations I know of turn the argument into one not of sexual standards, but of [civil] rights. It can be turned around and argued that homosexuality is a disability [to procreate] - which I believe it is.

I'd like to know if you could clarify exactly what you meant when you spoke about changes that would be necessary in a completely homosexual society. What exactly did you have in mind? Educational institutions?

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing against gay marriages actually. I'm arguing about the reasoning process which was in the post that was referenced.

I support gay marriages and in the context of a world in which something like only 2 or 3% of the population is exclusively homosexual it is an issue of no real importance.

Clearly if the world was exclusively homosexual then procreation would be divorced from relationships and new mechanism would have to invented for the routine solicitation of opposite sex partners for that purpose. Basic concepts of law regarding child support, parental rights and adoption would have to be thought thru.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

By the way. Homosexuality is a "naturally occurring" condition and is not, as far as the orientation is concerned, a matter of the individuals choice. But the natural function of sex in all animals is reproduction. In that sense, homosexuality is not "natural."

But, since so many people seem to not understand this, let me note that "natural" is not the equivalent of "The only thing permitted" nor is "naturally occuring" the equivalent of "the government must permit it."

Many orientations are naturally occurring. In fact, I beleive they all are. If that seems an odd assertion then try to name one. No one wakes up one morning and makes a conscious decision to become a foot fetishist. Jeffrey Dahmer did not choose to become sexually excited by torture and murder. So the fact that a particular sexual orientation is "naturally occuring" is utterly and completely meaningless when determining whether it should be permitted to be translated into actions satisifying that desire.

Since my (non-Judeo-Christian) religion doesn't give a hoot about what the bible says nor much worries about what people do in bed that is a non-issue for me. Although I also add that I have no emotional stake in decrying Judeo-Christian traditions since it doesn't make me feel like I'm being a rebel.

[vuzh.livejournal.com]

Homosexuality is a "naturally occurring" condition and is not, as far as the orientation is concerned, a matter of the individuals choice. But the natural function of sex in all animals is reproduction. In that sense, homosexuality is not "natural."

this still makes no sense.

are infertile heterosexual couples also "unnatural"?

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

No, but they could fairly be described as dysfunctional a word that might also be tasken as offensive.

Again, I wonder at this vehement insistence that homosexuality be described as natural. Just what does this accomplish?

And playing "why is the sky blue daddy" doesn't accomlish much either. Put it this way. Is there anyway whatsoever to determine what would happen if on a desert island you had two men and two women? What would be the "natural" pairing?

[vuzh.livejournal.com]

Again, I wonder at this vehement insistence that homosexuality be described as natural. Just what does this accomplish?

well, i'm certainly not vehement,
but i'm still unclear as to what the distinction is in your argument between 'naturally occuring' and 'natural'
what does it accomplish to say that homosexuality is not natural?

Is there anyway whatsoever to determine what would happen if on a desert island you had two men and two women? What would be the "natural" pairing?

the natural pairing would be whatever those four people decided they wanted,
because we are 'naturally' beings of free will,
who can decide what we want to do with our sex organs in the privacy of our houses or our desert islands, if we are so lucky as to have one.

Re:

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

Oh now, you're not being very candid are you. You know perfectly well that if you had to bet on it you wouldn't hesitate to assume two male-female pairs.

[electricwalrus.livejournal.com]

only because heterosexuality is statistically more common.

[vuzh.livejournal.com]

if i were one of the people on your proposed desert island,
yes, i would choose to be paired with a female,
assuming the female would "accept" me (heh, heh).

if one of the 1-10% of the population that you are vexed by were on the island, they would choose differently, and hope against odds that they might find a mate in this population of four.

odds are that any randomly chosen four people would be heterosexual,
because the majority of the world's population is heterosexual.

but majority doesn't make "natural".

Re:

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

In this case functionality makes natural.

[vuzh.livejournal.com]

in the world of rillifane maybe.

in the world of vuzh, what you said makes absolutely no sense at all.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

what does it accomplish to say that homosexuality is not natural?

Because the argument proves too much. If "naturally occuring" equates to "natural" and "natural" is the disposatory determination for legality than almost nothing can be prohibited.

Do you think people choose to be child molesters? Of course not. They are the victims of some combination of genetics and early childhood experience neither of which they choose. They are every bit as "natural" as homosexuals (or heterosexuals). So if the government must accept whatever homosexuals want on the basis that it is natural then why not child molesters?

Gay rights should be granted not because homosexuality is natural, not because its "obvious", not even because its some human right but because it suits public policy for a variety of perfectly good reasons that have nothing to do with anyone's moral or religious views.

[electricwalrus.livejournal.com]

Do you think people choose to be child molesters? Of course not. They are the victims of some combination of genetics and early childhood experience neither of which they choose. They are every bit as "natural" as homosexuals (or heterosexuals). So if the government must accept whatever homosexuals want on the basis that it is natural then why not child molesters?

I've seen this reasoning before and I think it's fallacious. The argument is not that gay people should have rights becuase homosexuality is natural, but because it's not harming any non-consenting parties. The "natural" bit is an aside, directed against conservatives who say that it's UNnatural.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

Obviously I also think the reasoning is flawed but I suggest that this is precisely the argument that is made. Recall that this thread began with Alex's post concerning someone jumping on the notion that saying "I accept gays" makes you some homophobic nutcase.

Much of what I hear these days is way beyond "it's not harming any non-consenting parties." (Not that I think that's the only reasonable argument). so I'm not convinced that the natural bit is merely an aside.

[vuzh.livejournal.com]

If "naturally occuring" equates to "natural" and "natural" is the disposatory determination for legality than almost nothing can be prohibited.

dude.

we weren't talking about legality,
we were only talking about nature.

so far as i know, the act of "sodomy"
is only illegal in a few states, and makes no distinction as to whether the "sodomy" is engaged in by a heterosexual or homosexual,
and so i don't think whether or not homosexuality should or should not be legal based on the fact that it's naturally occurring or not.

So if the government must accept whatever homosexuals want on the basis that it is natural then why not child molesters?

the difference between those two issues legally is consent.
two consenting adults are free to do what they like to each other, so long as no one is killed.
the United States governments have clearly declared that persons under certain ages set by the states are legally not capable of consent.

Gay rights should be granted not because homosexuality is natural, not because its "obvious", not even because its some human right but because it suits public policy for a variety of perfectly good reasons that have nothing to do with anyone's moral or religious views.

i agree with you there.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

You're not getting it. I don't like the argument (that gay is "natural") because it is a bad argument and is used to support the legal questions of Gay rights. But as such it fails. Every iota of energy used to support a bad argument is energy better devoted to a good argument.

[vuzh.livejournal.com]

i don't think we ever really even argued that specific point,
because you never really made any arguments regarding 'why' you don't think it's natural,

but that's fine.
you don't think it's natural.

sorry i didn't get it.
maybe next time.

[days-unfolding.livejournal.com]

Nicely done. There are gay rights activists who argue that whether or not homosexuality is biologically determined is completely irrelevant to the civil liberties issues (for much of the same reasons). I agree with you (shocking as that might be-;))

(I know you probably know this, Rillifane, but someone else reading may not.)

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

[...] the intent is to forbid any suggestion that anything proposed by the Gay Rights [movement] is arguable.

In other words - if I understand you correctly - the effect of stating "I accept homosexuals" implies (to some gays) that there's a choice/decision to be made on this issue, and that acknowledging the existence of such a choice/decision is in itself mortally offensive?

Might the Left's tendency toward relativism exacerbate such a position?

Cheerss...

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. If one is free to chose acceptance or rejection the implication is that you have a right to make that choice. But the Gay rights folks deny you have that right.

Its all really very Catholic on their part. Much like the Church's position that "Error has no rights."

[vuzh.livejournal.com]

But the Gay rights folks deny you have that right.

gay rights protestors are often screechy and irritating and superior-acting,
but i don't think they deny anyone's rights.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

And don't you think its just a wee bit odd that they act superior (to use your terms)?

Mind you, I distinquish between the current crop of very loud, very indignant, self styled Gay Rights activists and the great majority of gays.

Perhaps my annoyance stems from the fact that I (along with Dr.Laud Humphreys and Father Daniel Grebelny) founded the first (to my knowledge) Gay Rights organization in the Midwest. Being a straight, Republican politician taking up the cause of the civil rights of Gays I figure I'm entitled.

[vuzh.livejournal.com]

And don't you think its just a wee bit odd that they act superior (to use your terms)?

no.

most people who are protesting something act superior, because they believe strongly that they are right.

[electricwalrus.livejournal.com]

I'm a "gay rights folk" (and a straight one at that), and I don't claim that people have no right to dislike homosexuality. What I /do/ claim is that they have no right to enforce that opinion as law, because I don't think the government has any business interfering with sexual relations between consenting adults.

[days-unfolding.livejournal.com]

Good point. I actually would go a little farther and say that the term "homophobic" is an attempt to pathologize any rejection of gays.

Actually, that term might be counter-productive because it removes responsibility on the part of the person doing the rejecting.

Thanks for a thought-provoking discussion.

[days-unfolding.livejournal.com]

Okay--I have a slightly off-topic question for the both of you. Those on the Right cite moral relativism as the downfall of our society; however, I had understood that a certain amount of moral relativism is built into our society and our legal system. For example, someone who is speeding because his wife is in labor and he's driving her to the hospital is likely to face less sanctions if stopped than someone who is speeding because he's late for work. Is that not an example of moral relativism? Do you feel that the difference in sanctions is inappropriate? They both are putting others as well as themselves at risk.

This is a genuine question, not an attempt to bait you.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Moral relativism, as I understand it, is the view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks (or on the conventions of some society).

In my opnion, this is a principally different animal from the idea of mitigating factors, which - according to the 'Lectric Law Library (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m036.htm) - is defined as "information about a defendant or the circumstances of a crime that might tend to lessen the sentence or the crime with which the person is charged."

The law acknowledges that crimes are frequently committed under circumstances which are not justifiable nor excusable, yet they show that the offender has been greatly tempted; as in the example you cite, or the classical example of a starving man stealing bread to satisfy his hunger. Such circumstances are taken into consideration in mitigation of sentences.

It is my understanding that the concept of mitigating factors is a relatively recent arrival in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Some even go so far as to say that the reason the British have been (until recently, at least) a largely law-abiding people is because of centuries of harsh administration of the criminal sanction, including the death penalty for what we today consider minor offenses.

As I understand it, moral relativism would take the view that a society such as ours, which may mitigate the sentence of a man accused of stealing bread to feed his starving family, is morally equivalent to a society that chops people's hands off for such infractions, regardless of any underlying reason.

Cheers...

[days-unfolding.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

[vuzh.livejournal.com]

Homosexuality is natural occuring but the bottom line is that it is not natural.

i was with you till then...

huh?

[electricwalrus.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure it's meaningful to say that homosexuality is "unnatural" any more than it is to say that red hair is "unnatural." They're both fairly rare but seem to occur decently often in the human species.

True, homosexuality prevents reproduction -- at least inasmuch as it prevents the /desire/ to reproduce, since nobody's stopping gay men from donating to sperm banks or lesbians from receiving from them -- but so does, say, being a monk. And I don't hear people going around saying that being a monk is "unnatural."

also, what about bisexuality?

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think being a monk is rather "unnatural."

And it is not merely a matter of statistical distribution. That is the issue of "naturally occurring" which is a different question.

Sex and sexual preference exists for the purpose of propagating the species. That is how the "natural" ought to be defined. That human beings are capable to going beyond the simple natural imperative to reproduce doesn't change that.

[electricwalrus.livejournal.com]

but you could also say that absolutely anything a human does is "natural," since we're all products of nature.

if you're trying to say that homosexuality goes against evolutionary advantage, you may be right. but, like it or not, the word "unnatural" implies "bad" to most people.

Re:

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

Most people think that homosexuality is wrong because they think that God told some guy to write it down 5000 years ago. So what of it?

It doesn't seem very important that most people think that "unnatural" implies bad. They are just as wrong as people who think that "natural" implies good.

I don't discard logic to suit people who can't understand it.

Pushing a bad argument that can be knocked down doesn't help anything.

You make it sound like this is some difficult comcept to grasp. Its not and you and I both know its not. You can pretend for political purposes to believe otherwise like a little kid who answers every explanation by asking "why?" You can never arrive at a reasonable conclusion with him either but that doesn't prove much of anything does it?

[days-unfolding.livejournal.com]

Rillifane, words have connotations as well as denotations even if that's "illogical". And people tend to react more strongly to the connotations than the denotations even if that's illogical. Certainly connotations don't matter in a situation in which you don't care what others think of you (like here), but connotations do matter if you're trying to persuade. And you've been in politics; you know that.

(Hmm, this is the same argument that I usually get into with you. Generally admire your logic; generally appalled by your presentation of same.)