Freedomain Radio

In this podcast, Stefan makes the case for "tolerance" for homosexuals based on the "scientific fact" that their biology leaves them "without any choice" in the matter of who or what "attracts" them sexually. I use quotes only to indicate terms with which I take issue. I really don't want to appear sarcastic or that I am trollishly trying to prove Stef wrong. I have been a listener almost since day one and have found precious little that I can in any way disagree with. This podcast was the first exception, and I couldn't put my finger on what was troubling me about it until I began asking questions on the issue in the Nathaniel Branden thread.

First of all, in his introduction, Stefan says that he will argue for "tolerance" for gays. Later on, he stresses the importance for philosophers of understanding the difference between that which is choosable and moral, and that which is merely biological. I've always hated the word "tolerance" when used in this context. I would argue that there is no moral content to sexual thoughts and consensual behaviour, and therefore nothing to "tolerate". If it was a moral issue, then to tolerate it, and urge others to tolerate it would be kind of evil, would it not?

Most of the podcast is spent presenting scientific evidence that suggests homosexuality is purely and simply biological in nature. This is done by showing a correlation between homosexuality and anomolous male/female brain structures caused by hormonal interruptions in the womb, and animal studies involving hormonal manipulation. I have no problem with the idea that a correlation exists between hormonal brain development and homosexuality, but I think it's fairly well-known that correlation does not equal causality.

As for the animal tests, I think something really big is being overlooked here: free will. Humans have it, animals don't, and free will complicates things in a huge way. I actually went to the library on Saturday and picked up the book "Queer Science" by Simon leVay, and I have to tell you, I was literally retching at the descriptions of animal tests, not so much because of what was done, but the idea that this somehow explains human sexuality. I know offense isn't an argument, but I don't really think comparing apples to oranges is particularly helpful here. Otherwise, as is common with science presented in popular media, there was no description of what would have constituted proof in these studies, or even what the results of the tests were, only a description of the test and an assertion regarding what was proven. I returned the book the next day after reading only a couple of chapters.

Which leads me to the question of whether or not gays have a choice in their behavior. I'm not sure it was explicitly stated in the podcast, and it may just be my subjective interpretation, but much of what was said seemed to imply that people only argue in favor of a homosexual choice in order to justify a deep-seated, religion-based hatred of gays. But why do we have to take away their free will in order to justify their behavior? They aren't doing anything wrong or immoral! Isn't it more respectful to presume they have the same capacity to choose that the rest of us have, than it is to compare them to rats? I'm not saying that the choice is always a conscious one, and I would say that the heterosexual choice is almost never conscious, but it is a choice nonetheless, unless I'm missing something.

Regarding attraction, I can only say that it appears to have biological, experiential, cultural and psychological aspects, creating another complex free-will soup the variety of which could never be predicted.

In the other thread, someone asked me why it matters whether homosexuality is chosen or not. To me, it matters because if it is possible to make a choice in this area, then it is possible to make an erroneous choice, to decide against one's own values. If a man was truly attracted only to other men, but chose to lead a heterosexual life, get married, have children, and live the rest of his life unhappy, we would say that he committed a grave error. Obviously, this happens all the time. Then it must also be possible to make the opposite error. But if we assume that every person who ever claimed to be gay is objectively gay, and refuse to follow that evidence trail to the source of the error, then those that have made an error in this regard can never be helped.

Does this make any sense?

reddeerrick:

Which leads me to the question of whether or not gays have a choice in their behavior.

When you tested whether you have a choice in the matter, what were your results ?

As a matter of fact, the test was positive for heterosexuality. Seriously, there was a test. Obviously, I have personal reasons for my thoughts on this, and I will share if people are interested. I'd feel pretty stupid putting it out there if no-one gives a shit though.

reddeerrick:

As a matter of fact, the test was positive for heterosexuality.

No, I mean if you, for instance, would choose to change now to homosexuality, would it work ?

No, should it?

I'm certainly open to the idea that homosexuality is chosen behavior - can you provide some references, or scientific studies?

The reason that gays choose to "live straight" is largely due to social or religious pressure - we would not expect the decision to go the other way, because being gay is just so difficult.

Why do you think someone would choose to be gay?

Stefan Molyneux:

I'm certainly open to the idea that homosexuality is chosen behavior - can you provide some references, or scientific studies?

Do logical arguments not count? 

Stefan Molyneux:

The reason that gays choose to "live straight" is largely due to social or religious pressure - we would not expect the decision to go the other way, because being gay is just so difficult.

Why do you think someone would choose to be gay?

Well the obvious reason would be that being gay aligns with their values, and makes them happiest. Otherwise, I don't know for sure, but if I can answer a question with a question - why do people self-mutilate?  Why do people commit suicide? Both of these things go against any rational self-interest - yet people do them. Is it not possible that the statement "I've always known I was gay" might, in some cases translate to "I've always known there was something wrong with me"?

Sorry, can you recap your logical arguments for homosexuality being chosen?

Well, my general understanding of free will is that behavior is choice. But more specifically, if it is possible to choose against your basic values, such as living straight when you would prefer to be gay, then to do otherwise must also be a choice. It's not necessarily a conscious choice, but a choice all the same. Kinda like how you say that all parents chose to be parents.

I'm not sure it's that much of a choice when you have a gun pressed to your temple (risks of ostracism, abandonment, murder).

I didn't say it was an easy choice, just that it is a choice.

Mr. C:

reddeerrick:

As a matter of fact, the test was positive for heterosexuality.

No, I mean if you, for instance, would choose to change now to homosexuality, would it work ?

Only if I changed all my values, possible but not likely. 

Stefan Molyneux:

I'm certainly open to the idea that homosexuality is chosen behavior - can you provide some references, or scientific studies?

I would go looking for something except that there are a lot of hot-button political issues associated with this. I'm pretty sure that I would find some studies that support the gay marriage/same sex benefit crowd, and put forward the "no choice" theories, or alternatively studies which support religious groups, and put forward theories of "mental illness which can and should be cured" theories. I don't want to stand behind either of these, so I prefer to work it out logically, if you don't mind.

I have not heard an argument from morality in your post. So, basically, it is currently unknown if it's moral or immoral to be gay, which makes homosexuality a preference, not a binding obligation

A person's preference might be to be gay, but the person can force him(her)self to be straight. It is also possible that the person's preference is to be straight but (s)he can force him(her)self to be gay.

Now, as we know argument from morality is reversible. If you're saying that the person must use his/her free will to be straight when he prefers to be gay, e.g.: go against his preference, then it's fair to say that according to the same principle all the straight people must also use their free will to go against their sexual preferences, e.g.: according to that principle all straight people must be gay.

That is exactly not what I'm saying.