Homosexuality is seen by some to have a strong genetic base to it. If it really is genetic, can it be seen as wrong? Or just a sickness? In the end is it a choice, or does the subconscious drive the person to do what they do, and therefore have no control (or very little) over their actions, much like an alcoholic or a gambler?
Again, I’m just a by stander asking questions, trying to learn both sides.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Homosexuality is seen by some to have a strong genetic base to it. If it really is genetic, can it be seen as wrong? Or just a sickness? In the end is it a choice, or does the subconscious drive the person to do what they do, and therefore have no control (or very little) over their actions, much like an alcoholic or a gambler?
Again, I’m just a by stander asking questions, trying to learn both sides. [/quote]
Depends on how you define it.
If “homosexual” is a set of actions, then its a choice.
If it’s an orientation, than its not.
Thought experiment:
Man gets into the adult film industry. Is approached by a gay porn director, is told he’ll make 6 times the money doing gay porn than straight, and all he has to do is allow a guy to perform sexual acts on him. He decides to do it. He has never been attracted to men or wanted to be sexual with them, but has little adversion to trying it, especially considering the fat paycheck.
Is this man gay, for engaging in homosexual activity?
Or
Man desires other men, but, because of his upbringing, never acts on any of these desires. Has a wife, kids, etc, is never involved sexually, romantically, or emotionally with another man.
Is he gay?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?
What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]
never said “entity”.
Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.
And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.[/quote]
Hm. Interesting angle. Go on.[/quote]
That was my point. define natural rights in objective, real, physical terms.[/quote]
If you’re looking at humans as molecules, or suggesting a special set of rights for humans over other sets of molecules.
I just think certain issues apply only to humans because of our cognitive abilities, and to “living” stuff because it moves around so much. Not many ethical quandaries for a plant to deal with.[/quote]
Fail.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?
What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]
never said “entity”.
Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.
And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.[/quote]
Hm. Interesting angle. Go on.[/quote]
That was my point. define natural rights in objective, real, physical terms.[/quote]
If you’re looking at humans as molecules, or suggesting a special set of rights for humans over other sets of molecules.
I just think certain issues apply only to humans because of our cognitive abilities, and to “living” stuff because it moves around so much. Not many ethical quandaries for a plant to deal with.[/quote]
Fail.[/quote]
LMAO
?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?
What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]
never said “entity”.
Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.
And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.[/quote]
Hm. Interesting angle. Go on.[/quote]
That was my point. define natural rights in objective, real, physical terms.[/quote]
If you’re looking at humans as molecules, or suggesting a special set of rights for humans over other sets of molecules.
I just think certain issues apply only to humans because of our cognitive abilities, and to “living” stuff because it moves around so much. Not many ethical quandaries for a plant to deal with.[/quote]
Fail.[/quote]
LMAO
?
[/quote]
Your definition included “i just think”. Your definition of natural rights is relative (ei. not natural rights at all)
Then you mumbled some stuff about moving around and followed up with another supernatural term “ethics”. Which in addition to being supernatural is circular.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?
What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]
never said “entity”.
Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.
And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.[/quote]
Hm. Interesting angle. Go on.[/quote]
That was my point. define natural rights in objective, real, physical terms.[/quote]
If you’re looking at humans as molecules, or suggesting a special set of rights for humans over other sets of molecules.
I just think certain issues apply only to humans because of our cognitive abilities, and to “living” stuff because it moves around so much. Not many ethical quandaries for a plant to deal with.[/quote]
Fail.[/quote]
LMAO
?
[/quote]
Your definition included “i just think”. Your definition of natural rights is relative (ei. not natural rights at all)
Then you mumbled some stuff about moving around and followed up with another supernatural term “ethics”. Which in addition to being supernatural is circular.[/quote]
You have a weird definition of supernatural.
Bit of a failure of understanding Taoism in this thread.
First off, Taoism doesn’t explicitly denounce homosexuality in either the Tao or the Zhuangzi. Especially not in the Monotheistic sense. I don’t have either on me at the moment, but Taoism simply supports sex as a way of merging what you’d call yin and yang. However, given that the entire religion revolves around acceptance, non-action (individually and through government), and being a virtuous person, bias against a certain group of people never really comes into play.
Also the I Ching is something that Taoists can’t really relate to, as it’s a Confucian text that tries to predict the future. Either way, nobody complains about the Taoist approach to homosexuality because we don’t really have one.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?
What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]
never said “entity”.
Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.
And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.[/quote]
Hm. Interesting angle. Go on.[/quote]
That was my point. define natural rights in objective, real, physical terms.[/quote]
If you’re looking at humans as molecules, or suggesting a special set of rights for humans over other sets of molecules.
I just think certain issues apply only to humans because of our cognitive abilities, and to “living” stuff because it moves around so much. Not many ethical quandaries for a plant to deal with.[/quote]
Fail.[/quote]
LMAO
?
[/quote]
Your definition included “i just think”. Your definition of natural rights is relative (ei. not natural rights at all)
Then you mumbled some stuff about moving around and followed up with another supernatural term “ethics”. Which in addition to being supernatural is circular.[/quote]
You have a weird definition of supernatural.[/quote]
Something there is no physical realty of. No empirical evidence. No objective definition. Concepts that are entirely abstract. Yup, pretty weird.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m suggesting observing something for yourself. You’re making baseless personal attacks. Grow up, Irish.[/quote]
I haven’t attacked anyone . . . I merely said that your statement was just an allegation and alluded to the fact that in my circle we rarely, if ever discuss gays. In fact, this thread is probably the first time its come into any conversations I have had for at least 3 weeks.
…here’s what mr. Fry has to say on the matter in regards to the Catholic church’s stand on homosexuality:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?
What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]
never said “entity”.
Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.
And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.[/quote]
Hm. Interesting angle. Go on.[/quote]
That was my point. define natural rights in objective, real, physical terms.[/quote]
If you’re looking at humans as molecules, or suggesting a special set of rights for humans over other sets of molecules.
I just think certain issues apply only to humans because of our cognitive abilities, and to “living” stuff because it moves around so much. Not many ethical quandaries for a plant to deal with.[/quote]
Fail.[/quote]
LMAO
?
[/quote]
Your definition included “i just think”. Your definition of natural rights is relative (ei. not natural rights at all)
Then you mumbled some stuff about moving around and followed up with another supernatural term “ethics”. Which in addition to being supernatural is circular.[/quote]
You have a weird definition of supernatural.[/quote]
Something there is no physical realty of. No empirical evidence. No objective definition. Concepts that are entirely abstract. Yup, pretty weird.[/quote]
I’m sayin.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m sayin.[/quote]
This is the part where I get to chastise you for believing in mystical things that have no foundation in reality the way you do to christians.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m suggesting observing something for yourself. You’re making baseless personal attacks. Grow up, Irish.[/quote]
I haven’t attacked anyone . . . I merely said that your statement was just an allegation and alluded to the fact that in my circle we rarely, if ever discuss gays. In fact, this thread is probably the first time its come into any conversations I have had for at least 3 weeks.[/quote]
“Maybe you and your friends…” = attack.
And I’m not talking about “discussing gays”. I’m talking about calling someone you dont like a faggot, or describing something you don’t like as gay.
Please don’t act too stupid to understand the difference.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Homosexuality is seen by some to have a strong genetic base to it. If it really is genetic, can it be seen as wrong? Or just a sickness? In the end is it a choice, or does the subconscious drive the person to do what they do, and therefore have no control (or very little) over their actions, much like an alcoholic or a gambler?
Again, I’m just a by stander asking questions, trying to learn both sides. [/quote]
If you’ve read some of the other threads, you know that I consider myself an agnostic. However, I do have an interest in religious beliefs, I have kept open the possibility of rejoining a particular faith (although that door is slowly closing), and so I’ve done some research. Here’s a portion from a Catholic site explaining why homosexual behavior is still wrong even if it is genetically or physiologically determined. I think it makes a good argument. Now, keep in mind that when I say “good argument” that doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with it. What it means is that it uses reasoning and logic to refute a particular point rather than the typical “because that’s what the Bible says, all fags are going to hell, if you don’t accept that then you’re going to hell, too, and you’re an idiot for even asking the question.” I think the analogy to an alcoholic in explaining how being predisposed to a certain behavior does not necessarily make that behavior acceptable is a good one. Of course, the difference is that excessive drinking can have a spillover effect onto others while homosexual behavior, provided it’s done in private, harms no one. A drunk driver is a serious safety threat, while a gay driver isn’t (unless he’s having sex with a guy while driving, which would create safety hazard, but that would be true of a heterosexual couple having sex, a guy having phone sex, or any distraction while driving). However, the “does it do harm” analysis applies to how we structure our civil law. This is why there are laws against drunk driving and public intoxication, but no law against being passed out stupid on the floor of your home. In Catholic theology, and perhaps other Christian denominations, there is this idea of Natural Law the violation of which is wrong per se regardless of whether they cause harm to anyone. You have to take it on faith that violations of the Natural Law are wrong because the Natural Law is how God intended the universe to work, and violations of it disrupt the natural working of the universe. Or something like that. Anyway, under the Natural Law, it would be just as wrong to drink until you’re passed out stupid on the floor as it would be to engage in homosexual behavior.
Although the explanation does use reason and logic to make a point, you still need to make the leap of faith and believe in Natural Law. So, at the end of the day, the answer to your question is that the prohibition against homosexual behavior is still based on faith - the faith that there is in fact a Natural Law the violation of which is per se wrong.
Natural Law
People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.
The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestialityâ??that it is wrong because it is unnatural.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
“I Was Born This Way”
Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.
But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable “lifestyle” any more than homosexuality is.
Statements:
Anything that occurs in nature cannot be unnatural.
A sexual social contract between consenting adults that does not break any laws is acceptable.
Religious condemnation of a person’s sexuality is a matter of opinion and nothing more.
Being homosexual does in no way impair another person’s quality of life, or endangers society in any way.
(or at least not exponentially compared to other people’s hobbies)
Ephrem, I agree with you. But just for fun, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate, or in this case Religion’s Advocate (the two may be the same, for all I know) and try to refute your points from a theological perspective.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Statements:
Unlike other things in nature, humans have free will. Thus, humans can make a conscious choice to engage in behavior that would otherwise be unnatural. That is the purpose of Natural Law - to impose a sense of what is natural because humans have the ability to essentially “override” what would otherwise be considered natural
But we are talking about a religious/theological notion of law. A “contract” to engage in homosexual behavior violates Natural Law. Whether the civil law should follow the Natural Law is another matter. Certainly, civil law should be more concerned with harm to others. Also, if we assume that many bad behaviors are the result of some type of physiological predisposition, it would be unfair to punish someone for engaging in the behavior due to a lapse in judgment or a moment of weakness. That is why civil law only punishes the alcoholic for driving drunk, not for drinking in his own home. Similarly, it would be unjust in a sense for society to punish homosexuals for acts engaged in private. Nonetheless, society should discourage violations of Natural Law. Thus, for example, allowing homosexual marriage would be encouraging a violation of Natural Law.
Tough for me to argue this one even as Devil’s Advocate, only to say that this is not merely a matter of opinion but a matter of faith. Faith is a gift, and those who have received the gift believe that following God’s Natural Law is more than a matter of opinion. This is how one leads an ordered life and becomes closer to God. Going against Natural Law distances oneself from God and leads to a disordered life. This is simply a matter of faith.
[quote]4. Being homosexual does in no way impair another person’s quality of life, or endangers society in any way.
(or at least not exponentially compared to other people’s hobbies)
[/quote]
See my discussion on the interests of society in discouraging violations of Natural Law.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote: No, it’s family structure.
Where you work your boss is in a position of authority over you. Does that mean that your company is saying he is better than you?[/quote]
Maybe not ‘better’. But to carry on using the office metaphor, you could say your boss is nearer to the CEO than you, shares more in his presence and has a closer relationship with him… perhaps even an exclusive one. With regards to women and their relationship with God, as described in a lot of Biblical texts, it’s fairly obvious where that metaphor is going…
I don’t think the Bible or Christianity is a work of misogyny (although there is undoubtedly misogyny in it). And as you point out, the descriptions of Jesus and his interaction with women are pretty groundbreaking stuff - I think back to my own study reading of the Gospel of Luke.
But you have to be either very naive, or maybe a man, to argue against the idea that traditionally, in many other texts (and in Church history) women have come off decidedly second best. Second best in terms of what kind of relationship they are granted - by men - with God. How that relationship is curtailed and limited. It’s not just about gender limitations in language. I think too many feminist theologians and the countless women who have sought a (meaningful) role within the Church, throughout the ages, would disagree.
The Bible was written by a bunch of men. But I agree that there’s scripture and history, and then there’s the here and now. Today, millions of women are able to make their Christian religious experience as meaningful as they want it to be…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m sayin.[/quote]
This is the part where I get to chastise you for believing in mystical things that have no foundation in reality the way you do to christians.[/quote]
Ethics are the ideas you base your moral, or action, codes on (near as I can understand the terms).
Hardly supernatural or mystical, like a big bearded white man in the sky.
We’re anti-homosexuality orientated.
/End Thread
Edit: No, seriously, I just won the thread!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We’re anti-homosexuality orientated.
/End Thread
Edit: No, seriously, I just won the thread![/quote]
Cause yer like, stupid, n stuff.
