Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by acchow 3258 days ago
Can you explain why and how you think these are different?
1 comments

They're pretty obviously different. One is a characteristic of a person, and one is an action that can be taken by a person.
Sure, if we're being pedantic it's hard to enforce laws against "being" gay so they enforce laws against "acting" gay.

And until those countries figure out mind control it's just going to be oppression of their actions.

Now that we've cleared that up, I still think laws against "acting" gay are wrong (within the same framework that it's legal to "act" heterosexual).

Laws against inherent characteristics seem to me at least to be worse than laws which ban behavior. Conflating the two in order to make some particular law sound worse seems sort of dishonest to me.
Perhaps. But within the context of gay rights it is the government that behaved improperly. Society bundled behaviour and innate characteristics into a single thing. That was wrong, and it is important to highlight that.

Of course in a post homophobic world the distinction is rather irrelevant. It makes no difference to anyone if homosexuality is innate, or just a set of chosen behaviours. Why would it matter either way? But for a while it was necessary to remind people that you don't have any choice about being gay, or about having gay relationships. That claim was a response to homophobia, not something rooted in science of philosophy

There's still plenty of conservative people who believe the being gay is a personal choice, or perhaps something caused by your upbringing/environment, not something you're born with.

Of course, this has as much veracity as the idea that the Earth is flat or that the Sun and planets revolve around it, but there's a lot of people who believe it.

But the whole argument is ridiculous. Maybe there is a choice element to being gay. So what? That is a perfectly valid choice to make. But attacking someone for that is not valid, it is completely perverse.

It seems to me that the purpose of the "born with it" argument is to develop empathy among people who lack understanding. Because it helps explain why people act on their feelings, even if they are not a good idea. We can all relate to the power of lust, love etc. It is an important point to make. But that argument only has relevance to people who find it distasteful in the first place. The argument is a reaction to homophobia.

I'm confused by your comment.

>Society bundled behaviour and innate characteristics into a single thing.

It seems like that's what you're doing here:

>...you don't have any choice about being gay, or about having gay relationships.

Being gay does not mean you have to have gay relationships. Having gay relationships is a choice.

Yes we've rehashed the difference between internal thinking and action. I don't think anyone believes that a government is directly oppressing internal monologue.

The original quote was "being gay is illegal in many places". By saying "being gay is illegal" it seems to imply a behavior though. Being a murderer, or being a pilot, or being a carnivore...

But, you're right. We can all agree that it's totally legal to be a murderer or thief as long as you don't behave that way.