I've realized the major issue I'm dealing with has changed. Before I was struggling with the question of whether I'm attracted to guys. Now I've pretty much accepted that I am. So now the major issue is whether I can be attracted to girls enough to still pursue them. I do periodically meet girls that I like. There's just a lot less of the physical attraction that I feel toward certain guys.
I don't know whether to simply be a slave to physical attraction, though. I learned recently about Jean-Paul Satre's concept of "bad faith." Basically, one is guilty of bad faith if he believes that his path in life is predetermined by forces beyond his control. Of course, our choices are constricted by our circumstances, which existentialists refer to as our "facticity." But we are still free to choose between a number of options, and it is bad faith to claim that external forces make the choice for us. Thus, me claiming that I must live a gay lifestyle because I have an attraction towards men would be bad faith. In this way, one could argue that being gay is a choice, so to speak. The attractions are not chosen, but the behavior, the lifestyle, is. I think this is one of the major misunderstandings between the two sides of the gay rights issue. They have different interpretations of "choice." I think the sides arguing about whether or not homosexuality is a choice is pretty counter-productive.
Speaking of the two sides, I guess there were a number of Prop 8 protests yesterday. I have mixed feelings about them. For one thing, why couldn't all of those people mobilize like this before the election? I don't really understand what they hope to accomplish now, other than pissing off the religious right even more. On the other hand, it seems like a fair number of straight people are attending the protests too, which shows it's an issue that is important to more than just those that are directly affected by it.
It's been about a year since I started reading blogs. I feel like I've made progress, though not as much as I would like. Time is of the essence, and I'd really like to choose a side before my 20s are gone. Sigh.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Political and Philosophical Ramblings
Time to make up for the sparse postings with this massive post . . .
So, Barack Obama is going to be our 44th president. No big surprise there. I just really hope he is able to meet at least a fraction of the expectations that have been put on him. Sure, I voted for him. I'm just a little disturbed by the savior-status some people elevate him to. My dad, on the other hand, falls to the other extreme. I was shocked talking to him the other day. He seems to whole-heartedly believe that Obama was born in Kenya, and there is a massive cover-up to conceal that fact since it would make him ineligible for the presidency. Not to mention all of the anarchists and terrorists that he is buddy-buddy with. I really hope I never buy into wacky conspiracy theories like that. Such is the danger of constantly immersing yourself in only one side of a debate. I try to temper any Fox News I watch with MSNBC, or just stick to CNN, which at least seems somewhat balanced.
Prop 8 passed (just barely) here in California, as I'm sure everyone is aware. While I'm still working out my feelings about homosexuality, I was hoping it would fail. However, I'm not too pessimistic about the future. Looking at the demographics of the voters, young people tended to be against the proposition while older people were for it. Thus, as demographics change over the next couple of decades (or even the next decade) the scale will most likely tip in favor of allowing gay marriage.
One thing that bugs me is I find flaws in the arguments on BOTH sides of the debate. The gay rights side's argument is that this is an issue of equality of rights. One group is being deprived of fundamental rights by another group which enjoys them. My friend pointed out an interesting flaw to this argument: as it is now, everyone has the same marriage rights, the right to marry the opposite sex. No one group is being deprived of rights that another group has, despite the argument of gay rights activists. What they want is ADDITIONAL rights, the right to marry the same sex, that would apply to everyone (though gay people would obviously be the only ones who would want to use these rights). Now, supporters of gay marriage would argue that the right that gays are being deprived of is the right to marry the one they love. But is that a fundamental right? What if the one you love is married to someone else? Is that spouse depriving you of your fundamental rights? Just food for thought. I thought the argument was interesting, and couldn't really think of a good response.
My beef with the anti-gay marriage side is probably pretty familiar. The whole emphasis on "protecting the family" and especially the whole "the way it's been for centuries must be right." They had a good point on a local radio show one day: two slutty drunk idiots can get married one night in Vegas, as long as they are a guy and a girl. But a gay couple who have loved each other for 30 years? Nope. Nothing like the "sanctity" of that heterosexual marriage. And don't get me started on the "If Prop 8 fails, they'll teach gay marriage in schools!!!" Those scare tactics are probably what tipped the balance in favor of Prop 8, sadly.
So if I find flaws in both sides, why did I choose to oppose Prop 8? I had to do some serious thinking about my views on homosexuality, and I realized that one of my major hang-ups in figuring myself out is my lingering conflicts about the issue. The increasingly mainstream view is that it is a natural variation of normal sexuality. The American Psychological Association removed it from the list of mental disorders back in the 1970s. Yet it's hard to shake the doubts from my mind. This next part is going to sound extremely controversial, I apologize in advance, the following doesn't represent my opinion, just some of the thoughts I've had lately while trying to figure the whole thing out . . .
If everyone in the world were homosexual, humanity would obviously be in big trouble since procreation would grind to a halt. So homosexuality is okay for our species as long as not too many people practice it. Now of course, in this overpopulated world, you could argue that a little less procreation might be a good thing. But should there be so many preconditions for something to be considered moral? Saying homosexuality is okay, as long as it is limited in scope and the human population is large enough to withstand any decline in procreation?
Then a weakness to this argument occurred to me. Being celibate is not considered immoral. Heck, some religious leaders are required to be. But if everyone on Earth were celibate, humanity would suffer just as much as if everyone were gay. The same number of babies would be born: zero.
So where I stand now is that homosexuality is certainly not optimal in a Darwinian sense, but I think in this day and age consenting adults who love each other should be able to marry. The alternative is way too many loveless marriages. In fact, allowing gay marriage might actually improve the overall sanctity of marriage, since marriage is supposed to be about love.
Sorry if I offended anyone with my ramblings, I just wanted to be honest with some of the arguments that have been going through my mind. Please, anyone who makes it this far, share your thoughts, I'd love to see what you think.
B
So, Barack Obama is going to be our 44th president. No big surprise there. I just really hope he is able to meet at least a fraction of the expectations that have been put on him. Sure, I voted for him. I'm just a little disturbed by the savior-status some people elevate him to. My dad, on the other hand, falls to the other extreme. I was shocked talking to him the other day. He seems to whole-heartedly believe that Obama was born in Kenya, and there is a massive cover-up to conceal that fact since it would make him ineligible for the presidency. Not to mention all of the anarchists and terrorists that he is buddy-buddy with. I really hope I never buy into wacky conspiracy theories like that. Such is the danger of constantly immersing yourself in only one side of a debate. I try to temper any Fox News I watch with MSNBC, or just stick to CNN, which at least seems somewhat balanced.
Prop 8 passed (just barely) here in California, as I'm sure everyone is aware. While I'm still working out my feelings about homosexuality, I was hoping it would fail. However, I'm not too pessimistic about the future. Looking at the demographics of the voters, young people tended to be against the proposition while older people were for it. Thus, as demographics change over the next couple of decades (or even the next decade) the scale will most likely tip in favor of allowing gay marriage.
One thing that bugs me is I find flaws in the arguments on BOTH sides of the debate. The gay rights side's argument is that this is an issue of equality of rights. One group is being deprived of fundamental rights by another group which enjoys them. My friend pointed out an interesting flaw to this argument: as it is now, everyone has the same marriage rights, the right to marry the opposite sex. No one group is being deprived of rights that another group has, despite the argument of gay rights activists. What they want is ADDITIONAL rights, the right to marry the same sex, that would apply to everyone (though gay people would obviously be the only ones who would want to use these rights). Now, supporters of gay marriage would argue that the right that gays are being deprived of is the right to marry the one they love. But is that a fundamental right? What if the one you love is married to someone else? Is that spouse depriving you of your fundamental rights? Just food for thought. I thought the argument was interesting, and couldn't really think of a good response.
My beef with the anti-gay marriage side is probably pretty familiar. The whole emphasis on "protecting the family" and especially the whole "the way it's been for centuries must be right." They had a good point on a local radio show one day: two slutty drunk idiots can get married one night in Vegas, as long as they are a guy and a girl. But a gay couple who have loved each other for 30 years? Nope. Nothing like the "sanctity" of that heterosexual marriage. And don't get me started on the "If Prop 8 fails, they'll teach gay marriage in schools!!!" Those scare tactics are probably what tipped the balance in favor of Prop 8, sadly.
So if I find flaws in both sides, why did I choose to oppose Prop 8? I had to do some serious thinking about my views on homosexuality, and I realized that one of my major hang-ups in figuring myself out is my lingering conflicts about the issue. The increasingly mainstream view is that it is a natural variation of normal sexuality. The American Psychological Association removed it from the list of mental disorders back in the 1970s. Yet it's hard to shake the doubts from my mind. This next part is going to sound extremely controversial, I apologize in advance, the following doesn't represent my opinion, just some of the thoughts I've had lately while trying to figure the whole thing out . . .
If everyone in the world were homosexual, humanity would obviously be in big trouble since procreation would grind to a halt. So homosexuality is okay for our species as long as not too many people practice it. Now of course, in this overpopulated world, you could argue that a little less procreation might be a good thing. But should there be so many preconditions for something to be considered moral? Saying homosexuality is okay, as long as it is limited in scope and the human population is large enough to withstand any decline in procreation?
Then a weakness to this argument occurred to me. Being celibate is not considered immoral. Heck, some religious leaders are required to be. But if everyone on Earth were celibate, humanity would suffer just as much as if everyone were gay. The same number of babies would be born: zero.
So where I stand now is that homosexuality is certainly not optimal in a Darwinian sense, but I think in this day and age consenting adults who love each other should be able to marry. The alternative is way too many loveless marriages. In fact, allowing gay marriage might actually improve the overall sanctity of marriage, since marriage is supposed to be about love.
Sorry if I offended anyone with my ramblings, I just wanted to be honest with some of the arguments that have been going through my mind. Please, anyone who makes it this far, share your thoughts, I'd love to see what you think.
B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)