My last post was about the role of choices when it pertains to conceptions of freedom. Today I saw this post from TP shooting down Speaker of the House John Boehner's claim that homosexuality is a choice. I don't mind that TP does this. In fact, I appreciate that they are keeping tabs on this kind of stuff. But I don't see why its necessary to argue with Boehner on the point of choice regarding any issue pertaining to homosexuality.
The evidence seems to suggest it is not a choice. But let's say that one day we find out that homosexuality is a choice. What does that change regarding the arguments for extending rights to them? Isn't the whole conservative conception of freedom and the purpose of rights that people should be able to make their own choices about how to live their lives? Of course it is. And rightfully so for the most part. So what is it about someone choosing to be a homosexual that makes them throw conservative logic out the window and argue that gov't knows what is best for these people?
The only political argument I can come up with is a liberal-type argument that gov't needs to restrict rights because somehow people are endangering society. This is sometimes argued by conservatives by saying that homosexuality destroys society's morals. But that's a really tough thing to prove. And the evidence suggests it just isn't the case. Plus I think most reasonable people don't buy that.
I think the real reason anti-homosexual arguments hold water with conservatives is religion. Modern conservatives are just as concerned with religious views as they are political ones. Often times religious views form their political views, as in this case with homosexuals and with something like abortion. I'm not sure how you convince conservatives that their religious views (and thus their political views) are wrong. But i think it would help the liberal cause if we made the conservative argument for gay rights instead of always insisting homosexuality is a choice. If we did that we might be able to convince reasonable conservatives and libertarians to support gay rights.
The evidence seems to suggest it is not a choice. But let's say that one day we find out that homosexuality is a choice. What does that change regarding the arguments for extending rights to them? Isn't the whole conservative conception of freedom and the purpose of rights that people should be able to make their own choices about how to live their lives? Of course it is. And rightfully so for the most part. So what is it about someone choosing to be a homosexual that makes them throw conservative logic out the window and argue that gov't knows what is best for these people?
The only political argument I can come up with is a liberal-type argument that gov't needs to restrict rights because somehow people are endangering society. This is sometimes argued by conservatives by saying that homosexuality destroys society's morals. But that's a really tough thing to prove. And the evidence suggests it just isn't the case. Plus I think most reasonable people don't buy that.
I think the real reason anti-homosexual arguments hold water with conservatives is religion. Modern conservatives are just as concerned with religious views as they are political ones. Often times religious views form their political views, as in this case with homosexuals and with something like abortion. I'm not sure how you convince conservatives that their religious views (and thus their political views) are wrong. But i think it would help the liberal cause if we made the conservative argument for gay rights instead of always insisting homosexuality is a choice. If we did that we might be able to convince reasonable conservatives and libertarians to support gay rights.
Comments
Post a Comment