Reply #24: No, Wrong

[Forrest Greene]

>> "I can see where you are going with that: if we say it's ok for people to engage in homosexual behavior because they "can't help it", you give moral license for pedophiles (who may also have a mental or biological illness) to molest minors, and so on and so forth. Right?"

No, I was going somewhere else. I don't believe the "can't help it" argument should give license to anyone to interfere with anyone else who does not consent to it, nor to otherwise behave irresponsibly.

What concerns me is that if I, a straight male, someday wanted to have a homosexual relationship, my simply wanting that -- my arriving at a decision, by whatever course, to pursue that -- might not be seen as valid if I did not carry the "homosexual gene."

I guess what my concerns boil down to is that I am jealous of my freedom, & do not feel I need a genetic justification for actions I might care to take. There certainly may be genuine genetic reasons behind my actions, but I do not believe they are paramount, & I do believe they should not be treated as such, especially in the social / political sphere. To do so is to see us all as little more than animals driven by instinct. While in the sociobiological sense, we certainly are animals with many strong instincts, & this should be accounted for in our society, it should not, I think, become the _basis_ for our society / politics / rights. Especially not for our rights.

If I make a choice of which someone else disapproves, I don't want there to be support for my disapprover to dismiss me, my desires, & my decisions with "He can't help it, he's helplessly being driven by his genes." This disrespects & condescends to me & my choice, & shortly after that is when the behavior-vaccine research starts. Instead, I want those who disapprove of my action, whatever it might be, to have to say, "Well, that just plain disgusts me, but this free individual has the right to choose to do that. Just don't make me watch!" It seems to come down to a matter of my own self-respect.

Also, please understand that I don't mean this as an argument for "anything goes, as long as I can think of a justification for it." Free association does not exist without consent, & freedom is meaningless without responsibility.

I really do think that to put forth genetics as a cause of something of which some other group disapproves is to tacitly agree with their disapproval -- or at least it is to not challenge their disapproval -- by saying, in effect, "(Yes you're right, this behavior is abominable, but you see,) I just can't help doing it," & that that is a tactical mistake. It is to look for approval & support from groups which have none to give you. One should stand up for one's own decisions & actions, & for the freedom to freely make them, instead, & the genetic explanation just doesn't, in my opinion, sufficiently allow for that.