Hacker News Reader

Comment by whatshisface | Hacker News Reader

The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Your friend's argument would not work at all against people who are against homosexuality, because their answer to all of those questions would simply be "no." The "it's not a choice" argument only makes sense if you put yourself into the shoes of the other side and ask the question "given the resources I have, how could I conclude that gay marriage was acceptable?"

View on HN

>The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow.

The motivation is mostly religious.

Homosexuality must be a choice, otherwise God created homosexuals as they are, and homosexuality is just another part of Nature.

But if that's true, homosexuality can't be a sin, because sin is always a choice.

But homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is (even though it doesn't really,) therefore it must be a choice.

I always thought it went

P: Sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Q: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Therefore [P and Q] implies that homosexual activity is wrong but the mere act of being attracted to the same sex is not inherently sinful.

This is more or less correct, though the relevant scriptural passages put more shape and nuance on it.

As for why that should influence our votes for public policy, the reasoning goes that sin always brings trouble, death, and non-well-being to society, therefore influencing public policy away from sinful societal patterns and acts is one important way to love one’s neighbors, since it will result in greater well-being for them.

Right, people are talking about what's spiritually natural. Talking about what's biologically natural is just missing the point.

Also, why do you feel the Christian sacred texts doesn't really condemn homosexuality? I feel you have to do a lot of extra-textual analysis and theory-crafting to reach that perspective, so it's no surprise that Christians in general don't buy that idea.

It's been a while, but IIRC, the Bible only condemns homosexual sex specifically. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern inventions. Many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks) saw no conflict between their ideals of what we would consider "straight" sexuality and homosexual relationships.

And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics.

Someone living in Biblical times probably wouldn't have any concept of someone being "straight" or "gay," just of someone following cultural norms or violating cultural taboos. So to say the Bible condemns homosexuality is a misappropriation of the intent of the text outside of the cultural and temporal context to which it was intended to apply.

I don't normally do this, but I believe it's very relevant:

This comment you're reading has a dead sibling that pointed out the commonly-held Christian doctrine that some of the Bible's laws don't apply to modern Christians.

The commenter is absolutely correct, and here is a link from a famous and well-regarded theologian on the subject (R.C Sproul).

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/which-laws-apply/

In summary, there are civil, ceremonial, and moral laws in the Old Testament. For example, "no murder" is a moral law, while dietary restrictions are a ceremonial law.

I'm not commenting on the validity or "correctness" of this doctrine, as I am not a theologian. I just think it's worth confirming that this is something a lot of Christians believe.

There's a NT-only argument against homosexuality that derives the prohibition from the general ban on adultery, combined with the definition of marriage as man + woman.

In general, NT has plenty of stuff that can be appropriated for fire-and-brimstone preaching. Most of it is Paul's, which is why some consider Pauline Christianity to be a mutilation of what was preached before.

Paul was a moralizing moron, and he only gets such top billing in NT (and TBH, even considered some sort of apostle at all [0]) because NT was compiled by fellow moralizing morons. Anyone who has done any critical reading in any other context has seen Paul in the proper light and already tuned him right out. Readings from any of Paul's 47 letters are naptime for me.

[0] never met Christ, so he had to pretend he had some sort of vision to get in the club... Jesus treated the money changers better than He would have treated Paul.

> it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics.

There is a very convenient Christian doctrine where there are "three types of law in the Bible", which explains that some rules are meant for Israelites and some are meant for everyone (and you [or the church] basically get to guess which apply to you).

The Old Testament is there for context. It's not a matter of guessing or choosing, and the decision was made early on not to force non-hebrews to follow Old Testament law (meant specifically for Israelites) if they joined up.

It’s perhaps a digression, but where does the Bible condemn masturbation? The verses that are commonly-cited (at least in my experience, which is mostly among Protestants) are pretty clearly grasping at straws.

Could the argument be made that in the New Testament, it's not necessarily homosexual activity that is condemned, but rather it's the act of emasculating a man. The criticism against the Romans was that they were laying with men as they would woman, which at the time would mean to rob a man of something absolutely sacrosanct. 2000 years of history, and a lot of progress on the front of women's equality (probably not enough still), and it seems less of an issue for two consenting adults to engage in homosexual activity, whereas in Roman society, could a slave, or a man of lesser status truly consent to a homosexual relationship?

It always read to me that it was more about turning men into women than it was about actually performing homosexual acts.

> homosexuality can't be a sin

When you say "homosexuality" do you mean homosexual proclivities, or homosexual acts? It's an important nuance.

Judiasm/Christianity/Islam teaches that humans have a proclivity to sin (fallen nature), but God commands them to not sin, i.e. to act ccontrary to their nature.

There is no theological contradiction (or least, not anymore than normal) between natural homosexuals and God forbidding homosexual acts.

EDIT: The actual consequence of natural homosexuality is a difference of understanding. Birth condition vs self-inflicted. "Crack baby" vs "crack head".

> But if that's true, homosexuality can't be a sin, because sin is always a choice.

Not if you believe in total depravity combined with unconditional election. Which just happens to be the cornerstone dogmas of one very popular Christian denomination.

> The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow

I understand what you mean, but it doesn't seem to be the case. In regards to sexual preferences, for example, there are some that are, arguably, not a choice either, and still are considered absolutely forbidden.

> For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it.

Nope, that would be ridiculous. But at the same time having Down's syndrome is not devoid of legal consequences. You'll probably be denied a driving license or the possibility to own guns, and you can argue as much as you want that your condition is perfectly natural and you didn't have a choice, it won't make any difference.

Having moved on from biblical interpretations, sexual preferences are usually considered absolutely forbidden if participants can't give informed adult consent. So - voyeurism, anything involving children and animals, and so on.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that sexuality can be changed by conscious choice. So if your sexuality runs along those lines you're going to have a bad time, because you'll either have to repress your urges, or risk actions that damage others, possibly with criminal consequences.

The edge cases of this can become ridiculous - but still tragic. E.g. there are people who are primarily turned on by paving stones and/or drain covers.

It's not really obvious what "natural" means in this context. Is this imprinting? Genetics? Something else? There aren't any good answers. Criminal law does the best it can with them, but it's not clear that choice really applies, and criminal punishment is pointless and ineffective anyway - either as a deterrent or as rehabilitation.

The bigger moral question is maybe why some social groups seem obsessed with what they consider sexual deviance - including their beliefs about homosexuality - while apparently ignoring other moral and social questions.

What is the psychological process that turns homosexuality into a uniquely disturbing moral problem for them, while other hot-button issues - poverty, diet, government and corporate corruption, take your pick from a long list - are relatively uninteresting for them?

Sex is personal, visceral, and highly emotionally charged, while the other concerns you mentioned can easily stay abstract. There's no mystery there, people are just obsessed with sex. It's another side of the phenomenon by which any idea at all can be made into a sexual innuendo. It's where our mind goes.

This seems to be conceding ground that shouldn't be given, though. One of the underlying principles of liberal government is that the government needs to justify any and all restrictions placed on the people. The mirror image of this, is that people don't need any particular reason for doing something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com