Introduction
Sexual orientation and sex issues have always been exciting topics for discussion in society. In the 20th century, with the growing trends of political control, issues of sexual preference became the subject of public discussions and political campaigns. Remarkably, by controlling the sexual behavior of their ‘populations’, the states intended to demonstrate the unity of strength and will and reinforce their leadership positions in the eyes of the masses. This paper aims to discuss the article “Hetero by Choice?” by Richard Parker, which analyzes the origin of the idea of sexual orientation as a conscious human choice.
“Hetero by Choice?” by Richard Parker
Notably, the main issue discussed in the article is considering whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice. According to the author, politicians such as Barbara Bush began to use the idea that sexual preference is a choice to justify their desire to condemn homosexuals. This approach made it possible to preserve the ‘consistency’ of logic and was widely used in mass demonstrations for a long time. However, this apparent sequence confuses cause and effect, prejudging conclusions with conclusions, and bases judgments on personally biased beliefs that have no logical foundation.
The author disagrees with such opinions and explains the nature of sexual preferences. He notes that people tend to simply find that one of the sexes is more attractive to them, causes excitement, and inspires them to do crazy things. Moreover, the author emphasizes that the concept of ‘preference’ excludes the possibility of a conscious ‘choice.’ He gives the example that when people choose whether they like vanilla or chocolate ice cream, their ‘choices’ are based on feelings, not reason. The author is sure that the failure to understand this obvious truth is evidence of either profound stupidity or self-centered malice, and both of these qualities characterize people who use the idea of ‘choice’ in their political rhetoric negatively.
Equally interesting, the author notes that no person in their right mind would choose to be homosexual based on a rational choice, given how much hatred and stigmatization politics and public opinion directed at people who had a non-typical sexual orientation. Parker recalled the fifties and eighties when public hatred of homosexuals reached its limit in Western society. Therefore, this stance adds to the argument denying the consistency in political speeches condemning homosexuality.
The author provides another argument to support his position claiming that the notion of preferences is preliminary to a decision or choice. The author states that it is impossible to consciously chose sexual preferences. It is likely that such thoughts are formed based on life experience, physical world perception, and other factors which cannot be controlled by people consciously. The author provides an example of how preferences are formed. In particular moments, people realize that they are inclined to do something. Therefore, the decision-making process is the extent that is conditioned by society, not people themselves.
The author uses some rhetorical devices in the article, such as hypophora, euphemism, and apophasis. According to scholars, rhetorical devices make a speech more persuasive by appealing to the audience’s logic, emotion, or ethics (Khajavi and Rasti 2). The mentioned hypophora is a quick response to a rhetorical question posed by the author, and apophasis, which uses a permutation of words, makes the speech more expressive, enhancing the emotional message. At the same time, euphemisms are used to avoid too harsh expressions, for example, when describing an opponent and their position.
Conclusion
Thus, the article “Hetero by Choice?” by Richard Parker was discussed. This article analyzes the origin of the idea of sexual orientation as a conscious human choice. According to the author, politicians deliberately pretend that they do not understand the origins of the concept of preference and do not notice inconsistencies in their statements to the general public. Parker explains the meaning of the concept of preference and examines the reasons why public figures introduce erroneous ideas into their speeches. The author presents a comprehensive discussion of the issue, using rhetorical devices to create a more engaging message.
Work Cited
Khajavi, Yaser, and Alireza Rasti. “A Discourse Analytic Investigation into Politicians’ Use of Rhetorical and Persuasive Strategies: The Case of US Election Speeches.” Cogent Arts & Humanities, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-7.