For most of the time I've been politically aware, that has been the most common reason activists give for gay rights--it's wrong to discriminate against people for something they can't change. I find the argument disturbing, because of what it implies about religious discrimination, but it's too big a part of the political background to ignore.
Yes. One of the things we touched on in the discussion was the difference between "fluid" and "controllable." Just because something changes, that doesn't mean that the change was under voluntary control.
But I, too, am uncomfortable with the whole argument. I think activists often oversell the degree to which the causes of sexual orientation are even known, because they want so much to make the argument that people can't change. What I think they are overlooking is that the argument carries an unspoken corollary that, if a way to change were to be found, GLBT people would be obligated to take it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-23 09:20 pm (UTC)Yes. One of the things we touched on in the discussion was the difference between "fluid" and "controllable." Just because something changes, that doesn't mean that the change was under voluntary control.
But I, too, am uncomfortable with the whole argument. I think activists often oversell the degree to which the causes of sexual orientation are even known, because they want so much to make the argument that people can't change. What I think they are overlooking is that the argument carries an unspoken corollary that, if a way to change were to be found, GLBT people would be obligated to take it.