Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

Customary international law is unenforceable and basically a "please follow this." As I stated, and as you now seem to admit, it has no bearing.

Eh? I admitted no such thing.

If that is the common opinion of the citizens of the us, I assure you that it is not so for the rest of the world.

For other countries who do not have the military or economic might to match the us or any of the security council members, THE RATIONAL AND EQUAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IS THE ONLY CONSOLATION.

If anything, you are admitting that the us' commitment to human rights is, at most, superficial.

Is that what you're saying?

They can seek redress from the Security Council, which will act as they please, regardless of humanitarian concerns.

Again, you are suggesting that might is right.

Sort of hypocritical, don't you think?

For example, abstaining from a vote on this issue would be a moot point if it was indeed universal. You can argue that it should be or that it is a universal norm all day long, I am simply saying that it lacks the enforcement to really matter.

Eh?

You don't think that the declared principles in the udhr has anything to do with the fall of apartheid in south africa?

Or perhaps all the international effort towards a two-state solution in palestine comes from people's infatuation with goat-herders?

Or are you saying that the only method of enforcement is a military solution?

Should I enumerate those who were not? Picking and choosing who to try only seems to vindicate my position that it is in fact enforced based on other concerns.

Irrelevant.

Just because there are drug enforcement laws in the us doesn't mean that there are no drug dealers, does it?

To enforce natural law violations you would need to violate the principle of sovereignty, which is a cornerstone of the UN Charter. Only the Security Council possess the legal authority to enforce resolutions, and they are rarely going to enforce something based on an issue of human rights simply out of benevolence.

There is NO NEED to violate sovereignty because the principles of the undhr are principles that INDIVIDUAL NATIONS PRESCRIBE FOR THEMSELVES. That is the consequence of the political association.

This is the same principle of sovereignty embodied in the social contract -- the power of the sovereign to govern comes from the consent of the governed.

 

[numinus]

Good grief. 123 pages on homosexuality, leading, predictably to homosexual marriage.

Perhaps to hide the fact that there is NO PROOF that homosexuality is indeed genetic.

All of this has already been settled, right here on this forum.

Correct.

There is no homosexual gene that has been identified and scientifically verified independently.

The conclusion is inevitable.

For one thing, homosexuality is not a choice. It may be genetic, or it may be something else, but it is the way some people are born.

Nonsense.

The action of engaging in sex with another human being, is first and foremost -- A CHOICE.

In fact, no such action can occur without the thought that gives it volition.

At one time, left handedness was considered somehow evil, and lefties were forced to attempt to copy the right handed majority. At least, we've become a little more enlightened now.

No one is forcing anyone to have sex with another person -- heterosexual or otherwise.

For another, homosexuals should have the same rights as heteros to form legal civil unions, call their ceremonies "weddings", and go on "honeymoons", and have all of the same rights as married couples.

But the word "marriage" is sacred, and therefore can't be changed, so their marriage license will have another word on it. That is the only difference that should exist between a gay couple and a straight one. It is a logical and a good compromise between the traditionalists and the gay marriage advocates.

It is akin to choosing a church: You can go to whatever church you want, but can't call yourself Catholic unless you are. That word is taken, so you have to use a different one.

Correct.

They can enter into contracts with one another, call these contracts whatever they want, even marriage, have the particular terms of the said contract arbitrated under the legal system, etc.

That is NOT A MARRIAGE in the legal sense of the word, nor can gays force the state along with everyone else to see it as such and enact a law that says it is such.

The good thing about it is that there is NO additional legislation required since we have all sorts of laws governing contracts.

There. No more need to waste bandwidth.

But militant gay activists, being their abrasive selves, would have none of it. They are only interested on imposing their lifestyle on everyone and would not be satisfied with anything less.

 

[BigRob]

Eh? I admitted no such thing.

If that is the common opinion of the citizens of the us, I assure you that it is not so for the rest of the world.

For other countries who do not have the military or economic might to match the us or any of the security council members, THE RATIONAL AND EQUAL APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IS THE ONLY CONSOLATION.

If anything, you are admitting that the us' commitment to human rights is, at most, superficial.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes, along with the majority of world governments.

Again, you are suggesting that might is right.

Sort of hypocritical, don't you think?

I am suggesting that the Security Council is not going to care about human rights abuses unless there is some other reason to get involved.

You don't think that the declared principles in the udhr has anything to do with the fall of apartheid in south africa?

Or perhaps all the international effort towards a two-state solution in palestine comes from people's infatuation with goat-herders?

What did it do in China? What did it do in Sudan? What has it done in Sri Lanka? What has it done in Saudi Arabia or most of the Middle East?

As for a two state solution, if human rights was the issue it could have been declared years ago. Sad fact is, much of the Middle East does not want to deal with a Palestinian state either. Remember Jordon controlled much of that area of a long time and made no move to create a state. I wonder why that was.

Or are you saying that the only method of enforcement is a military solution?

Not sure where you got this from anything I have said. Saying that the UNDHR is not enforceable and mostly meaningless somehow means I am a hawk and warmonger? Give me break.

Irrelevant.

Just because there are drug enforcement laws in the us doesn't mean that there are no drug dealers, does it?

Difference being when we find one we can arrest them and enforce the laws. When we find a human rights violation, we often do nothing.

There is NO NEED to violate sovereignty because the principles of the undhr are principles that INDIVIDUAL NATIONS PRESCRIBE FOR THEMSELVES. That is the consequence of the political association.

If an individual nation can prescribe for itself whatever definition of human rights they want, who is to say they are in violation of it except for themselves?

The enforcement problem is still there, and GA resolutions are just that, resolutions. Further, if states continue to not abide by the prescriptions if does not become part of their customary law. Almost the same concept as reservations in a treaty. This creates a whole new issue set to deal with, all of which amounts mostly to the world doing nothing about human rights violations except paying it lip service, which is pretty much what we see today.

This is the same principle of sovereignty embodied in the social contract -- the power of the sovereign to govern comes from the consent of the governed.

This is the American way of looking at it, but it does not explain for authoritarian regimes, in which most of the human rights problems occur.

 

[samsara15]

Homosexuals have every right to engage in whatever sexual activities they deem to do so, as long as they violate no one elss's rights, which is also true for heterosexuals. The genetic determinance of it has not been fully established, but is likely a combination of genes. End of discussion.

 

[numinus]

Yes, along with the majority of world governments.

I'm sorry but do try to speak for yourself and your government only.

It is settled then -- americans have no intentions of honoring their government's commitments to human rights.

So, what is all this about equal protection of the law for gays? As far as you're concerned, there is no such thing.

I am suggesting that the Security Council is not going to care about human rights abuses unless there is some other reason to get involved.

I got you the first time. As I said -- HYPOCRITICAL.

What did it do in China? What did it do in Sudan? What has it done in Sri Lanka? What has it done in Saudi Arabia or most of the Middle East?

Irrelevant.

As I said, just because there is a universal declaration of human rights doesn't mean no government will ever try to deny them to others.

However, it is necessary to declare these human rights as a frame work for the equal application of law.

As for a two state solution, if human rights was the issue it could have been declared years ago. Sad fact is, much of the Middle East does not want to deal with a Palestinian state either. Remember Jordon controlled much of that area of a long time and made no move to create a state. I wonder why that was.

It is a human rights issue -- every human being has a right to a citizenship.

Not sure where you got this from anything I have said. Saying that the UNDHR is not enforceable and mostly meaningless somehow means I am a hawk and warmonger? Give me break.

I meant that you conveniently ignore the fact that diplomatic pressure is being applied by the un and its member-states on governments who violate the principles of the undhr. Therefore, these principles are ENFORCEABLE -- although it might not be as direct as you want it to be.

Difference being when we find one we can arrest them and enforce the laws. When we find a human rights violation, we often do nothing.

There is no difference. THE LAW IS VALID -- even if we are often incapable of absolutely enforcing them. That is enough.

If an individual nation can prescribe for itself whatever definition of human rights they want, who is to say they are in violation of it except for themselves?

This question is nonsense.

The un is, itself, a body politic (consisting of individual nations) in much the same way as the us is a body politic (consisting of individual persons).

Individual persons in the us are subject to the laws of the us constitution in the same way that individual nations are subject to the charter of the un.

And the bill of rights defines the restrictions of the us government regarding the freedoms of all its citizens as the undhr defines the restrictions of the un and its member-states to theirs.

All this because individual persons in the us as well as individual nations in the un HAVE GIVEN THEIR CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED BY A LAW THEY PRESCRIBE FOR THEMSELVES.

So, when you consent to a law that you prescribe to yourself, whether as an individual or as a sovereign nation, are you not, in fact, FUNDAMENTALLY BOUND BY IT?

The enforcement problem is still there, and GA resolutions are just that, resolutions. Further, if states continue to not abide by the prescriptions if does not become part of their customary law. Almost the same concept as reservations in a treaty. This creates a whole new issue set to deal with, all of which amounts mostly to the world doing nothing about human rights violations except paying it lip service, which is pretty much what we see today.

Again, this is nonsense.

You are talking about ga resolutions. The undhr is a ga resolution that has become a CONSTITUTIVE DOCUMENT of the un -- meaning it is one of the FUNDAMENTAL REASONS FOR BEING of the un. Not to mention the BASIS OF COMMON INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Now, economic sanctions against north korea are un ga resolutions but are NOT constitutive documents of the un nor the basis of common international law.

You do the math.

This is the American way of looking at it, but it does not explain for authoritarian regimes, in which most of the human rights problems occur.

Nonsense.

That is the way the social contract theory explains it.

And as far as the social contract theory is concerned, it has many forms -- your presidential form of government is one, parliamentary form of government, another, and a benevolent form of monarchy, yet another.

Did you actually think that a dictatorship isn't itself, a social contract? Try reading the leviathan by thomas hobbes.

American way of looking at it, indeed!

 

[BigRob]

I'm sorry but do try to speak for yourself and your government only.

It is settled then -- americans have no intentions of honoring their government's commitments to human rights.

So, what is all this about equal protection of the law for gays? As far as you're concerned, there is no such thing.

Gay rights would be a domestic issue within the United States and capable of being enforced.

I got you the first time. As I said -- HYPOCRITICAL.

Reality often is.

It is a human rights issue -- every human being has a right to a citizenship.

A right to citizenship in what?

I meant that you conveniently ignore the fact that diplomatic pressure is being applied by the un and its member-states on governments who violate the principles of the undhr. Therefore, these principles are ENFORCEABLE -- although it might not be as direct as you want it to be.

Diplomatic pressure from the UN is not an enforcement mechanism. If the United States enforced domestic laws by saying "please do this" would you call that enforcement?

The un is, itself, a body politic (consisting of individual nations) in much the same way as the us is a body politic (consisting of individual persons).

Individual persons in the us are subject to the laws of the us constitution in the same way that individual nations are subject to the charter of the un.

And the bill of rights defines the restrictions of the us government regarding the freedoms of all its citizens as the undhr defines the restrictions of the un and its member-states to theirs.

All this because individual persons in the us as well as individual nations in the un HAVE GIVEN THEIR CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED BY A LAW THEY PRESCRIBE FOR THEMSELVES.

So, when you consent to a law that you prescribe to yourself, whether as an individual or as a sovereign nation, are you not, in fact, FUNDAMENTALLY BOUND BY IT?

You would be bound by it if in fact it was a law. However, the structure of the UN basically stipulates that GA resolutions will not be binding on members, therefore you are not bound by it.

You are talking about ga resolutions. The undhr is a ga resolution that has become a CONSTITUTIVE DOCUMENT of the un -- meaning it is one of the FUNDAMENTAL REASONS FOR BEING of the un. Not to mention the BASIS OF COMMON INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Now, economic sanctions against north korea are un ga resolutions but are NOT constitutive documents of the un nor the basis of common international law.

You do the math.

I will let the UN "do the math." Here is what they have to say on the matter.

The following declarations adopted by the international community are not legally binding: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Declaration on the Right to Development (1986) and the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (1992). Many countries have incorporated the provisions of these declarations into their laws and constitutions. International covenants and conventions have the force of law for the States that ratify them.


Basically they state what I have been saying. It is not binding, and only enforceable if the domestic entity chooses to enforce it, which we have no say over.

In regards to North Korea, those are Security Council Resolutions, which do have the binding power of law.

That is the way the social contract theory explains it.

And as far as the social contract theory is concerned, it has many forms -- your presidential form of government is one, parliamentary form of government, another, and a benevolent form of monarchy, yet another.

Did you actually think that a dictatorship isn't itself, a social contract? Try reading the leviathan by thomas hobbes.

American way of looking at it, indeed!

I have read the book. As for a social contract with a dictatorship I could care less. I am pointing out the reality that most of these authoritarian regimes violate human rights and do not care, and the majority of the world might say they care, but won't do anything about it.

 

[numinus]

Gay rights would be a domestic issue within the United States and capable of being enforced.

Of course it is. Have I said anything that suggests otherwise?

Reality often is.

Again, let me remind you to speak for yourself. After all, not everyone are hypocrites.

A right to citizenship in what?

A country of origin or nationality, of course. Is there any other form of citizenship you had in mind?

Diplomatic pressure from the UN is not an enforcement mechanism. If the United States enforced domestic laws by saying "please do this" would you call that enforcement?



You would be bound by it if in fact it was a law. However, the structure of the UN basically stipulates that GA resolutions will not be binding on members, therefore you are not bound by it.



I will let the UN "do the math." Here is what they have to say on the matter.

The following declarations adopted by the international community are not legally binding: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Declaration on the Right to Development (1986) and the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (1992). Many countries have incorporated the provisions of these declarations into their laws and constitutions. International covenants and conventions have the force of law for the States that ratify them.


Basically they state what I have been saying. It is not binding, and only enforceable if the domestic entity chooses to enforce it, which we have no say over.

In regards to North Korea, those are Security Council Resolutions, which do have the binding power of law.

Clearly, you wish to discuss the un rather than homosexuality so I will direct my answers to this in the other thread.

I have read the book. As for a social contract with a dictatorship I could care less. I am pointing out the reality that most of these authoritarian regimes violate human rights and do not care, and the majority of the world might say they care, but won't do anything about it.

No.

You wish to represent the idea that the right of a sovereign to govern comes from the consent of the governed is an american idea.

Clearly, it isn't. In fact, the ideas in your declaration of independence and your constitution directly come from the political philosophies of MODERN CONSTITUTIONALISM which was first conceived in EUROPE.

 

[samsara15]

Black skin color cannot be traced to a single gene, yet it is undeniably genetic.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Black skin color cannot be traced to a single gene, yet it is undeniably genetic.

The latest thing I read indicated that male homosexuality appears to be linked to a complex of 34 different genes. The drive to make complex issues into simple black and white ones is indicative of fear and ignorance.

 

[PLC1]

The latest thing I read indicated that male homosexuality appears to be linked to a complex of 34 different genes. The drive to make complex issues into simple black and white ones is indicative of fear and ignorance.

Absolutely. So is the drive to ignore fact and logic, and forge ahead with the idea that homosexuality is a choice, and indicative of "sin" or weakness on the part of the individual.

 

[Dr.Who]

The latest thing I read indicated that male homosexuality appears to be linked to a complex of 34 different genes. The drive to make complex issues into simple black and white ones is indicative of fear and ignorance.

While there is a chance that homosexual orientation is related to genes there is a 100% certainty that the homosexual lifestyle (including homosexual behavior) is related to decisions.

The only reason anyone cares is because some have made the argument that if homosexuality is genetic, ie. beyond ones control, that we should not discriminate against gay people.

But since the lifestyle and behavior is behavior no matter what the cause of the orientation that argument falls flat.

What needs to be argued is that all humans are humans and need to be treated with dignity, even if the laws treat their behaviors differently.

 

[Dr.Who]

Absolutely. So is the drive to ignore fact and logic, and forge ahead with the idea that homosexuality is a choice, and indicative of "sin" or weakness on the part of the individual.

Maybe it is black and white to not be able to make a distinction between homosexuality and the behavior or the lifestyle.

There is no doubt that homosexual behavior is a choice. Most churches state that the orientation is not a sin but that acting on it is. In the same way most churches do not state that heterosexuality is a sin but that acting on it outside the bounds of marriage is. I do not know of any statement in the bible that directly and irrefutably states that last underlined part.


Most argue that morally marriage must be between a man and a women and therefore gay sex is always outside of marriage and therefore a sin. I think this is a stretch too because Christian morals about marriage would only be accepted by Christians. On a separate issue state decisions about marriage only apply where the state has a compelling interest. In both cases neither the state nor the church has justification which must be universally accepted to determine what gays can do when they marry. That decisions is best left to gay people and whatever non-state or religious organization agrees to marry them.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

While there is a chance that homosexual orientation is related to genes there is a 100% certainty that the homosexual lifestyle (including homosexual behavior) is related to decisions.

The only reason anyone cares is because some have made the argument that if homosexuality is genetic, ie. beyond ones control, that we should not discriminate against gay people.

But since the lifestyle and behavior is behavior no matter what the cause of the orientation that argument falls flat.

What needs to be argued is that all humans are humans and need to be treated with dignity, even if the laws treat their behaviors differently.

Two points, Who, one: if the laws treat people differently then their dignity is compromised. Two: if homosexuality is an innate quality that harms no one, then there is no reason to treat people differently under the law. Heterosexuals are not required to stop having sex even though the human population is too large, there is no reason to ask homosexuals to stop having sex, is there? Besides your religious taboos, I mean.

So far no one has given a valid reason for homosexuals to be treated differently under the law.

 

[PLC1]

Maybe it is black and white to not be able to make a distinction between homosexuality and the behavior or the lifestyle.

There is no doubt that homosexual behavior is a choice. Most churches state that the orientation is not a sin but that acting on it is. In the same way most churches do not state that heterosexuality is a sin but that acting on it outside the bounds of marriage is. I do not know of any statement in the bible that directly and irrefutably states that last underlined part.


Most argue that morally marriage must be between a man and a women and therefore gay sex is always outside of marriage and therefore a sin. I think this is a stretch too because Christian morals about marriage would only be accepted by Christians. On a separate issue state decisions about marriage only apply where the state has a compelling interest. In both cases neither the state nor the church has justification which must be universally accepted to determine what gays can do when they marry. That decisions is best left to gay people and whatever non-state or religious organization agrees to marry them.

Heterosexuality is not a choice, either, but heterosexual activity is. Still, few choose to be celibate, but they most certainly have that right. Fewer still pretend to be homosexual, and act on that choice. Why would we expect homosexuals to either (1) remain celibate, or (2) pretend to be heterosexual? We don't expect that of heterosexuals.

It's interesting that you would bring up Christian morals, meaning that sex of any kind outside of wedlock is a sin, especially since 40% of all babies are now born outside of marriage. It seems to me that bringing children into the world without having a partner to help raise them is irresponsible at best. Most Christian churches would call it a sin.

 

[numinus]

Two points, Who, one: if the laws treat people differently then their dignity is compromised.

Utter nonsense.

If I put only male urinals in my business establishment, I would perhaps be in violation of my business license for 'upholding human dignity' by treating people the same.

Duh?

Two: if homosexuality is an innate quality that harms no one, then there is no reason to treat people differently under the law.

You can very well argue it is an innate human quality but IT IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE.

Heterosexuals are not required to stop having sex even though the human population is too large,

Neither are homosexuals required -- whether they do it with the same or opposite gender.

there is no reason to ask homosexuals to stop having sex, is there? Besides your religious taboos, I mean.

No one is asking them to.

So far no one has given a valid reason for homosexuals to be treated differently under the law.

Against supreme ignorance, even god contends in vain.