Born This Way Blog

I don't care what people engage in sexually for the most part. However, "I was born this way" is a really bad argument for the social acceptance of anything. How far would such an argument actually take us? The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has tried to use a similar line of reasoning. Claiming that pedophiles are born sexually attracted to prepubescence. Supposing it was true, would it qualify them for social acceptance? My 8-Ball says "NO FRIKKIN WAY!". Nor would it be acceptable if psychopathy and serial murder were innate inclinations of the psycopathic individual. Again, I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, but this is a poor argument that if accepted opens the doors to all manner of innate paraphilias.

Actually, to provide a clinical definition of pedophilia; one who is primarily and involuntarily attracted to prepubsescence and does not feel an equal attraction to adult humans of either sex.

Though this condition is likely not congenital, it is linked to early-childhood sexual abuse. Victims of childhood sexual abuse develop abnormally in the limbic regions of their brains. And some 80% of convicted pedophiles show abnormal development. So it is pretty damn close to being "born this way" at the very least their own brain development was not within their control.

Clearly, social acceptance can not be based solely on such a baseless argument but must rely primarily on the rights of an individual to freely engage in whatever acts they see fit, so long as they do not trespass on the individual freedoms of others. There still remains the larger social/cultural mores that will shape us going forward.

@RyanS - I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of this blog.

Of course being gay should not be considered acceptable simply because it's innate. "Natural" and "ethical" are not the same thing, as your examples demonstrate.

However, BTWB never tries to make that point. Their goal is to help vulnerable young gay people. The false, pervasive claim that being gay is a choice does serious damage to these kids. It's used to pressure them into trying to change their sexual orientation, which is sort of like trying to live without sleep - you just end up doing yourself serious harm for no good reason.

Yes, this is entirely separate from any moral/political question. Why is homosexuality acceptable? Because it is no more or less harmful than heterosexuality. There is plenty of evidence to this effect on other sites and from other fields. Whether or not it also happens to be a "choice" is irrelevant to that debate.

But given that homosexuality is both innate AND acceptable, we should not be encouraging gay youth to torture themselves. THAT is unethical, and that is what BTWB is trying to address. They are simply telling people to be who they are, not trying to add to the case for gay rights. That case is already quite solid.

@Limbo - I appreciate the distinction.

That distinction is very important. There is a difference between what our innate inclinations are and what we can "choose" to be inclined toward, or how we choose to respond to our inclinations.

Anger is an "innate" state of the human mind, yet we can choose whether or not to act on our anger. In the past psychologists have suggested that "venting" our anger on pillows and other objects is a good coping mechanism, however recent research explores how venting itself can increase a person's frequency and intensity of becoming angry. This suggests that "venting" can reinforce the very emotional states that it is supposed to alleviate.

Practical wisdom from our distant past makes the suggestion that we all have particularly bad aspects of ourselves. Many contemporary Christians would identify this as a "sinful nature." Strategies for reigning in devious inclinations are given. A lot of what can ultimately be gleaned from these teachings is that many of our desires, motives and emotional states are factually erroneous. Based on fallacious assumptions about reality and the human condition. Central to this is perhaps the view that human beings are absolutely contingent on a "higher power." To a secularist such a power might be "Nature." Therefore what is "Natural" takes precedent upon what is "Unnatural." As if something which was Godly would take precedent upon something which is Ungodly. That human beings are absolutely contingent is evidence by the formation of our self-identity and the role of contingencies in the evaluation of self-worth. An adept in these schools often needs to work within the primordial feeling portions of their own mind to achieve and inner state of equalibrium with the order governing reality. Such that, their intentions and actions are not disharmonious with the natural order, as is the case with many of the "sinful" inclinations. And there is the belief or perhaps understanding that many of these inclinations feed on themselves, driving behavior which ultimately reinforces the inclination. Whole-scale, a rise in the endorsement of some such inclination could become a sociocultural phenomena. The human identity being absolutely contingent, is in-part contingent upon the sociocultural milieu. In-fact, formal psychology indicates that various forms of imprinting occur to by-and-large shape the values and opinions of humans according to their geographical location and heritage. If one subtracts all these contingent identifiers one is left with the functional aspect of being human itself which may be archaically referred to as "soul."

Perhaps this is mere opinion, but it does at least raise the possibility that the popular trend in society is in-fact wrong. There is a threat of jumping on the band-wagon too soon and making fallacy and nonsense a common part of society. Telling someone that they have the choice to act on an inclination and thereby strengthen that inclination or to explore the inclination and it's functional aspects or explore some other method of erradicating the inclination may not be cruel and unusual punishment, it may in-fact be extremely insightful wisdom and advice. That may or may not be true with respect to homosexuality, but argumentatively it should be considered that there are equally pluasible alternatives. It does disturb me quite a lot that people, even teenagers and prepubescent teens in our societies are not strong enough mentally to handle that kind of "attack." This kind of weakness will completely corrupt our society. It is my suspicion that post-Spock self-love, self-esteem, ego-boosting, parental psychology led to what Twenge has called The Narcissism Epidemic. Wherein, everyone has a heightened sense of entitlement and sensitivity to evalutaions of self-worth which did not exist before the 60s. Researchers in the field of psychology studying the role of contingencies in the evaluation of self-worth find that hypersensitivity to evaluations of self-worth correlates with an inability to accept criticism. Negative self-evaluations lead to depression. Whereas, those who primarily evaluate themselves with respect to principled domains (i.e. religion) do not suffer depression from negative self-evaluation and are more accepting of the possibility they may not already be perfect.

I have nothing to add save thank you for speaking up Limbo.

Well, maybe Neato will publish my last comment, maybe not. I honestly feel like its a bit futile because I know how hard it is to contradict popular opinion. Again, if its not hurting anyone else, do whatever you want. I don't really have a problem with homosexuality, so if you are reading that into me then you are probably missing what I'm saying too. This hypersensitivity to stigma is going to bankgrupt us if we can't even talk about these things. To be honest, we haven't even scratched the surface of this for me, I haven't even remarked on homosexuality per se, its primarily about the line of reasoning that is being used to justify social acceptance of it. Instead of focusing on the meat and potatos, one's own personal freedom, we are paying attention to potentially hazardous forms of reasoning. If people are that sensitive to negative evaluations of themselves and false information about the human condition then we are entering into a world of pain. Where alternate viewpoints aren't even given a proper hearing but are slotted into preconceived categories of opposition and we will never see eye-to-eye. I try very hard to examine both sides of an issue dispassionately and remark on many of the misconceptions on either side, but even I am generally just slotted into one category and ignored. At the extreme, we risk stigmatizing and ostracizing someone whose viewpoint is just different from ours, because we perceive an attack on ourselves.

@RyanS - That's not the point I was making.

I apologize if it sounded like I was trying to stigmatize your position - that was not my intent! I do think your reasoning is valid and I don't think you're being anti-gay. I just think your original argument presented a straw man.

As you put it, saying that people are born gay "is a really bad argument for the social acceptance of anything." I agree! That's a lousy line of reasoning, and (as you also point out) one that is potentially dangerous when applied to other social questions.

What I'm saying is that the Born That Way Blog makes no such argument, so I don't understand why you're picking it apart. You suggest that the proper argument for gay rights should be based on "the meat and potatos, ones own personal freedom," and again - I agree! As you put it: "if its not hurting anyone else, do whatever you want." I said basically the exact same thing: "Why is homosexuality acceptable? Because it is no more or less harmful than heterosexuality."

In other words, I think you have focused your critique on a line of reasoning that no one is actually using. In fact, the major organizations supporting gay rights follow your preferred argument! They conclude that homosexuality falls under the realm of personal liberties - not because they think it is natural, but because they think it is harmless.

As for your new point about self-esteem and hypersensitivity, I'm not buying it. I'll grant you that we should encourage people to be thick-skinned and resilient, children included! However, encouraging kids to change something about themselves that can't be changed and doesn't need to be changed is just a huge waste of energy, whether or not it happens to hurt their feelings. Again, this is like telling kids to try and live without sleep - confidence notwithstanding, they end up focusing lots of effort on a task that is futile and without benefit. Kids do need to be challenged, but challenges like turning straight are wholly unproductive.

I did try to read the discussion here, but it was long and boring.

Being "born this way" helps to take some of the pressure off of playing the blame game - whose fault it is that you turned out the way you did. And people tend to try and discover why someone didn't turn out "normal".

I would compare it to alcoholism and AA's theory that you have no control over your "disease" of alcoholism. Once you accept the fact that you are who you are, you give up trying to change your sexual preference to fit in.

Born this way, does make the argument that they were 'born that way.'

They were not. The idea that you have no free will and are preprogrammed to do whatever you want is crap. If you don't think you have any more control over yourself than an animal than you should be put in a cage, which is usually what we do to people who do not control themselves.

I believe that 'grew this way' would be more appropriate. Gays became gay because thats what made them happy. I don't think they are crazy or victums of abuse or mentally deficient, I think they are living the way that makes them happy, just like I live the way that makes me happy.

@Randall - It's not crap. We must first realize we are not free, and that our thoughts, feelings, emotions etc... are contingent on domains of self-evaluation. We go through a radical deconstruction of our character, reigning in the determinants. It is in-fact, through determinism, that one becomes free. But freedom of this sort is gifted/earned. All this contingency and self-evaluation is Babylon, Maya, Hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuiKJ0rRTAo&feature=related

@Limbo

Well, I believe that self-evalution is a big problem in all areas of our culture, and the difference between productivity and being mired in self-absorption. We've lost sight of our ability to evolve in this regard, and instead embrace egotism and self-indulgence. With some very serious consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ukqLXH17bY

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcgd.isr.umich.edu%2Fcrockerlab%2Fscales%2FCSWscale.pdf&h=e8027
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologie.uni-freiburg.de%2Fabteilungen%2FSozialpsychologie.Methodenlehre%2Fcourses%2Fws0809%2Fbroemer%2Ftexte-fur-seminar-selbst-und-selbstwert%2FT4%2Fdownload&h=e8027
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.medicalnewstoday.com%2Farticles%2F218499.php&h=e8027
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2F20%2Fclarence-darrow-on-the-situation-of-crime-and-criminals-2%2F&h=e8027

@Randall - Yes, of course BTWB makes the claim that gay people are born gay. I never suggested otherwise. (As you point out... it's in the name of the blog.) All I'm saying is simply that they do not advance this claim as a justification for gay equality.

Now, your free will argument:

Yes, we have free will. Yes, people who do not control their actions are a menace. But we're talking about instinct here, not actions. And whereas I have control over my actions, most of my instincts are indeed preprogrammed.

I can't just decide not to feel pain, not to get hungry, not to get scared. That's hardwired - I was born that way, I can't help it. Does conceeding that point mean surrendering free will? Of course not. I can choose to steel myself against pain, I can choose to fast, I can be brave in the face of fear. The instinct is preprogrammed, but I decide what to do about it. THAT is free will.

Sexual orientation is the same way. I've been gay my whole life - no matter what I do, I find myself attracted to men and not attracted to women. Am I ruled by these instincts? Again, no. My decision to obey those instincts is both conscious and deliberate. I could pursue women if I so chose, whether I'm attracted to them or not. But even if I did that, I'd still be gay. And since I can think of no reason to follow that path, I don't.

See what I mean?