Why the Right Should Stop Attacking Homosexuality - Part 1/4

Mr. Stolyarov begins his arguments for the societal legitimization of homosexuality by contending that every homosexual is an individual and should be judged individually.

Essays representing Mr. Stolyarov's past position on this issue (no longer his present view):

"A Rational Defense of Marriage": http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/199640/a_rational_defense_of_marriag...
"Homosexuality: A Chosen Harm": http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/234004/homosexuality_a_chosen_harm.html

Gennady Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com
Author, The Progress of Liberty Blog: http://progressofliberty.today.com/
Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html
Author, Implied Consent, A Play on the Sanctity of Human Life: http://rationalargumentator.com/impliedconsent.html
Author, A Rational Cosmology: http://rationalargumentator.com/rc.html
Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• homosexuality
• morality
• virtue
• conservative
• right
• philosophy
• marriage
• society
• ideas
• tolerance
• family
• individualism
• comm

[Arado16]

It is very heartening to see that you have changed your mind on homosexuality. I read your essay "Homosexuality: A Chosen Harm" and was quite disappointed by the argumentation, especially because i agree with you on so many other issues. As Popper said, no idea can or should be considered infallible, including the views of Ayn Rand on homosexuality (even though i as a homosexual do agree with her on the issue of the individual versus the collective and on her critique of montheistic religion)

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you for your comment and for your interest in my work. I am of the opinion that an individual who remains open to reason and evidence will be able to change his mind on certain issues if this is where the pursuit of truth leads him. Anything else would amount to dogmatism: belief in an idea *irrespective* of where the logic of the issue leads.

[cpmkw]

Here's a clue for you: THE IDENTITY OF OTHER BEINGS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS FOR CASUAL CRITIQUE AND DIME-STORE ANALYSIS. What an unbearable piece of work. You need to dial it back and take the time to take a look in the mirror: I think you have no conception what people see when you put on these prissy caricatured shows like this. Do you imagine they look up to you for your reason? They see an awkward, immature, neurotic oddity, with psychological issues with egocentrism and grandiosity.

[moshesh]

You choose who you want to be and that is your right? Right? Well, homo is a choice or right as you call it. Race is not a right. It's something that cannot be changed unless you know how to change DNA. Can a White man be black then change his mind and be White again? No, but a homo can change to hetero if he or she wants. The power of choice. Stop saying you were created like that. U were not. U chose

moshesh 1 second ago

[GStolyarovII]

The standard by which to judge the propriety of homosexuals' public behavior should be this: "If a heterosexual person said or did this in public with regard to his/her relationship, would I consider this an instance of proper behavior?"

[GStolyarovII]

Thank you for your comments. I maintain that homosexuals can behave in good taste by observing certain universally recognized norms of civility -- say, abstaining from certain kinds of graphic or explicit language or not delving into particularly private and vulnerable aspects of their relationships in public discourse. Whatever they do in the private sphere -- and whatever motivates them to do this -- they ought to be able to tactfully discuss matters pertaining to their relationship situation.

[arabiccola]

Secondly, I suggest that the uncommon constitution of mind possessed by those individuals is incompatible with the most common constitution of mind over areas such as "taste". That is, I suggest that mutual agreeing over any standard for "good taste" is inherently difficult, since the possession of the same constitution of mind was formerly the only mean of providing such an agreement. Therefore, it's not surprising that the manifestations of either one is regarded as "repulsive" by the other.

[arabiccola]

Brilliant! I certainly can see how well you can formulate your ideas, and I just love it. I also see how honest you are in knowing what is more correct (which is clear given your earlier positions). However, I still think that I can challenge your positions, if you may allow me. Firstly, I suggest that homosexuality is more than a sexual preference, and that it's usually associated with behavioural changes that may be reasonably attributed to the acquisition of different "constitution of mind".

[arabiccola]

Quote: "I no longer hold the positions described above and I believe that all future, public blanket criticism of homosexuals... No matter how well-intentioned that criticism might be will do far more harm than good. Moreover, I urge the withdrawal of all objections to homosexual marriage or open manifestations of homosexuality provided that these manifestations are: 1) done civilly and 2) in accordance with the same expectations of "good taste" as the company manifestations of heterosexuality".

[agavegrove]

You've got to define it somewhere. Biologically, in the animal kingdom, and particularly our species, heterosexual unions are the only natural ones. Don't believe me? Take an A&P course. If society starts giving one preference full legal recognition then in the future every preference will want recognition: bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia. Where do you draw the line? Everyone can argue they were born that way.