Christian Vanneste (UMP) blanchi par la cour de cassation : une honte
15 novembre 2008, 11:46, par Clara
The homophilic postulate that since homosexual orientation is not a simple choice, it is THEREFORE a) exactly equal to heterosexual orientation, and b) obligatorily GOOD, is false and problematic on many levels.
Firstly, there are several types of sexual orientations (towards animals, children, dead people) that are not the result of simplistic or simple conscious choices, this does not make them unproblematic nor legitimate.
Secondly, a person who experiences sexual attraction to children or very fat people, for example, can claim they did not consciously choose to do so, but this is distinct from whatever actions or behaviors they choose to have as a result of this orientation. If one experiences desire towards people of the same sex, minors, grossly fat people, animals, torturing other human beings, this does not make a person devoid of responsibility or choice regarding their actions related to their sexual feelings. Thus feeling is distinct from behavior, and human beings are certainly responsible for a large part of their actions. To say that Mr. Vanneste cannot criticize behavior, and that behavior is indistinct from sexual feeling is what is utterly absurd !
One of the fundamental conceptual problems with the notion of « sexual orientation », meaning a simplistic experience of sexual attraction (which by its own problematic definition is either « neutral » or « good »), is that it takes this experience out from the specific psycho-social contexts where it happens. Sexual desire cannot be taken out of context because it is the context that will determine if it may be destructive, dysfunctional, and problematic both in terms of individual experience as well as the larger social effect ( concerning causes as well as ensuing behavior). Different types of sexual desire can also be a product of psychological and character problems – all of this gets conveniently erased in the artificially inane concept of « sexual orientation. »
In a real democracy, a citizen would have a right to formulate critiques on all of these different human sexual experiences, orientations, and behaviors, including causes, explanations, and consequences.
To say that a citizen cannot decide on a moral level if any orientation (to same sex, minors, animals, etc.) is good or bad, harmful or inane, beneficial to reproducing a healthy society or not, is to deprive each and every citizen of seeking knowledge on sexuality issues and of contributing their arguments to a discussion on the subject. It is therefore a repugnant practice, because homophilic theories are profoundly incorrect and lopsided and not beneficial to society. However a critique of homophilic theories, concepts, and postulates can only happen if there is freedom of expression from critics, such as Mr Vanneste. The court’s decision is right.
The homophilic postulate that since homosexual orientation is not a simple choice, it is THEREFORE a) exactly equal to heterosexual orientation, and b) obligatorily GOOD, is false and problematic on many levels.
Firstly, there are several types of sexual orientations (towards animals, children, dead people) that are not the result of simplistic or simple conscious choices, this does not make them unproblematic nor legitimate.
Secondly, a person who experiences sexual attraction to children or very fat people, for example, can claim they did not consciously choose to do so, but this is distinct from whatever actions or behaviors they choose to have as a result of this orientation. If one experiences desire towards people of the same sex, minors, grossly fat people, animals, torturing other human beings, this does not make a person devoid of responsibility or choice regarding their actions related to their sexual feelings. Thus feeling is distinct from behavior, and human beings are certainly responsible for a large part of their actions. To say that Mr. Vanneste cannot criticize behavior, and that behavior is indistinct from sexual feeling is what is utterly absurd !
One of the fundamental conceptual problems with the notion of « sexual orientation », meaning a simplistic experience of sexual attraction (which by its own problematic definition is either « neutral » or « good »), is that it takes this experience out from the specific psycho-social contexts where it happens. Sexual desire cannot be taken out of context because it is the context that will determine if it may be destructive, dysfunctional, and problematic both in terms of individual experience as well as the larger social effect ( concerning causes as well as ensuing behavior). Different types of sexual desire can also be a product of psychological and character problems – all of this gets conveniently erased in the artificially inane concept of « sexual orientation. »
In a real democracy, a citizen would have a right to formulate critiques on all of these different human sexual experiences, orientations, and behaviors, including causes, explanations, and consequences.
To say that a citizen cannot decide on a moral level if any orientation (to same sex, minors, animals, etc.) is good or bad, harmful or inane, beneficial to reproducing a healthy society or not, is to deprive each and every citizen of seeking knowledge on sexuality issues and of contributing their arguments to a discussion on the subject. It is therefore a repugnant practice, because homophilic theories are profoundly incorrect and lopsided and not beneficial to society. However a critique of homophilic theories, concepts, and postulates can only happen if there is freedom of expression from critics, such as Mr Vanneste. The court’s decision is right.