Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

The unitive and pro-creative aspects of human sexuality are INSEPARABLE from one another.

No they aren't. A person who is (pardon me) sexually aroused is not thinking about conceiving a child. Moreover, the carnal act is a direct expression of and a way of increasing love between any two persons who both respect each other and respect themselves. You think that this is unjustified apart from secondary consequences of the love. Therefore, you do not subscribe to the sort of "treat each person as an end in themselves" ethics that I do but rather to a form of ideal utilitarianism that views the ideal of an increased number of persons as more important than any individual. There is no bridging the gap between those two ways of thinking, so further discussion of unity and procreation is pointless.

Is a sadist a moral person just because he is inclined to express love in a violent manner?

Is a masochist existing in a state of human dignity just because he consents to it?

Sadomasochism is hierarchical and abusive. Homosexuality, in and of itself, is neither.

Expression, consent, happy - are NOT the ideas that define a MORAL GOOD, however else you pretend otherwise.

I agree about consent. Two people could agree to shoot each other in the head and that would be evil rather than good. However, happiness, understood in a long-term sense, is indeed a primary moral good, and expression is as good or as bad as the idea that is being expressed.

Morality dictates how a human being OUGHT to behave or be treated according to some RATIONAL PRINCIPLE discernable by all.

I think this perfectly illustrates the logical fallacy of most anti-gay thinkers. You cannot "discern" the reasons for homosexuality, so you presume they must be immoral. By reductio ad absurdum, I cannot discern the reasons teenage girls have for listening to boy bands, therefore those reasons must be immoral. I can further point out the error in this thinking by analyzing the following:

By definition, this excludes personal ends...

All human actions, including ethical decisions, consist entirely of personal ends- ones own and those of others. The rational principle is to treat each individual as being of infinite (and therefore equal) worth- a principle itself based on the personal emotional end of empathy. It is the intent to do this that makes an act good or bad. The specific application of this intent always involves fallible subjectivity and therefore is best described as correct or incorrect. Good and evil themselves can be understood only as emotional states, as logical positivists note. What positivists miss is that those emotional states are the foundation of all of the logic they enshrine.

What is wrong is when people attach a moral, legal, social or even biological IMPETUS for what is clearly a personal choice.

Homosexual acts are a matter of personal choice. So are all other human actions. All moral, legal, social and biological justifications for human actions are based on self-love and its extension through empathy (in the case of morality) and the consistent application of those emotions (in the case of the others). You cannot demonstrate in any way how homosexuality violates these emotion-based imperatives. You can show only that it makes you feel bad in some way. However, since you are not applying empathy to the issue, your objections are not of a moral nature. You are free to hold your views, but they carry no ethical weight. I'm finished with the issue. You may continue if you like.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

An action based on how it feels - that is arbitrary.

Your whole argument seems to boil down to one point: you deny the existence of love (not sex) between homosexual people. I didn't say most of what you attributed to me. Your quote: "Ill repeat it for your benefit - the sexual act, by itself, whether HOMO OR HETERO, is not love. If it were so, then the prostitute would be the most loved individual on earth." has nothing to do with what I said, I'm talking about love not sex, you are the one who said that love is a "UNITIVE PROCESS" and that it "REQUIRES pro-creative activity". Make up your mind, if love requires procreative activity I suspect that means SEX--unless you have another way to procreate.

I think consenting adults should not be discriminated against for expressing love for other consenting adults. That seems pretty straightforward. How say you?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

F-O-T
If I understand you right, you are saying that the mythical "gay" gene results in increased levels of fertility among straights?

This sounds like a huge stretch to me but I will read your link.

MareT
I don't believe comparing human with animal sexuality is a valid compsrison.
The homosexual behavior in animals that I know of is far different from human homosexual behavior.

I wasn't necessarily talking about sex, I was referring to pair-bonding. I know a bunch of homosexual people who have pair-bonded and raised families and I've never seen them have sex either. More than 1500 animal species pair-bond in homosexual ways, exhibit courtship rituals, build nest/dens/houses, but I don't know a lot about their sex lives. The actual sex acts between homosexual pair-bonded animals and humans is beyond my personal experience (I think I may be glad of that).

Force of Truth is correct in that there is research suggesting that mothers with one homosexual son are more fertile than others (statistically speaking).

 

[numinus]

No they aren't. A person who is (pardon me) sexually aroused is not thinking about conceiving a child.

Of course. It is a biological impulse. And this biological impulse exists for the NATURAL IMPERATIVE of pro-creation, does it not?

And when one speaks of imperatives or the operation of natural law, one is NECESSARILY speaking of a RATIONAL PRINCIPLE that is applicable to like things (in this case, human existence, as a whole).

Granted that the chemical precursors of getting aroused occur in the body for a wide array of stimuli, some of which has nothing to do with pro-creation, one cannot say that this arousal ITSELF constitutes the END for which people OUGHT to behave.

Moreover, the carnal act is a direct expression of and a way of increasing love between any two persons who both respect each other and respect themselves. You think that this is unjustified apart from secondary consequences of the love. Therefore, you do not subscribe to the sort of "treat each person as an end in themselves" ethics that I do but rather to a form of ideal utilitarianism that views the ideal of an increased number of persons as more important than any individual. There is no bridging the gap between those two ways of thinking, so further discussion of unity and procreation is pointless.

There are many FORMS of love and respect. ONLY conjugal love has both a unitive and pro-creative nature.

From this kind of love ensue the concepts of motherhood, fatherhood, family relations and the inalienable rights of every individual to them.

You simply cannot divorce these from the question of morality in human sexuality.

There is no sense in confusing the love for a child, or the love for a friend with conjugal love.

Sadomasochism is hierarchical and abusive. Homosexuality, in and of itself, is neither.

It is NOT 'heirarchical and abusive' when viewed form the standpoint of an EXCLUSIVELY SUBJECTIVE morality. The same 'subjective' reasoning will lend credence to ANY action one can concieve.

I agree about consent. Two people could agree to shoot each other in the head and that would be evil rather than good. However, happiness, understood in a long-term sense, is indeed a primary moral good, and expression is as good or as bad as the idea that is being expressed.

They are all the same. The PRINCIPLE that drives action to these pursuits is what makes them moral. And if the principle is lacking, whether the actions are the same or not, then the end for which the action was made is not a moral good.

I think this perfectly illustrates the logical fallacy of most anti-gay thinkers. You cannot "discern" the reasons for homosexuality, so you presume they must be immoral. By reductio ad absurdum, I cannot discern the reasons teenage girls have for listening to boy bands, therefore those reasons must be immoral. I can further point out the error in this thinking by analyzing the following:

Very poor analogy.

As I said, morality must conform to a categorical imperative, which are good in themselves.

Both the examples above have no moral worth IF they accrue to a merely subjective ends, hence ONLY a subjective good.

So when a teenage girl listens to boy bands for NO OTHER REASON except for, say, the appreciation of beauty or learning, then that teenage girl is conforming to a moral good.

A homosexual act, on the other hand, can NEVER conform to the standard of 'man as an end in himself' because for whatever end or however frequently anyone indulges in it, it WILL NEVER result in the reproductive potential that is inseparable from human sexuality.

All human actions, including ethical decisions, consist entirely of personal ends- ones own and those of others.

No. Some actions are done as a matter of DUTY, hence, not only for purposes BEYOND personal ends, but sometimes opposed to it.

A lot of people would NEVER knowingly lie, cheat, steal, etc. AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, even if they would be better off doing it.

For these people, the moral good is its own reward.

The rational principle is to treat each individual of infinite (and therefore equal) worth- a principle itself based on the personal emotional end of empathy.

No. Equality among men is a good in itself. Nothing in the real world remotely suggests equality, certainly not emotion. And yet it is good to treat you fellowmen as such.

It is the intent to do this that makes an act good or bad. The specific application of this intent always involves fallible subjectivity and therefore is best described as correct or incorrect.

No. Subjectivity happens when one considers a personal end in his moral calculations. When one disregards any personal end and behaves according to a RATIONAL PRINCIPLE alone, then that action is a moral action.

Good and evil themselves can be understood only as emotional states, as logical positivists note. What positivists miss is that those emotional states are the foundation of all of the logic they enshrine.

No. Good and evil applies to the rational nature of a thing, not emotional states. Of all the circumstances and emotional states that would possibly contribute to and bring about murder, not a single one would EVER justify it.

Homosexual acts are a matter of personal choice. So are all other human actions. All moral, legal, social and biological justifications for human actions are based on self-love and its extension through empathy (in the case of morality) and the consistent application of those emotions (in the case of the others).

No. Self-love is not the ONLY form of love. In fact, it is the lowest form of love for the simple reason that it does not conform to RATIONAL PRINCIPLES.

You cannot demonstrate in any way how homosexuality violates these emotion-based imperatives. You can show only that it makes you feel bad in some way. However, since you are not applying empathy to the issue, your objections are not of a moral nature. You are free to hold your views, but they carry no ethical weight. I'm finished with the issue. You may continue if you like.

Imperatives are commands of REASON, not emotions. Homosexuality, takes the human sexual act without the reproductive purpose inherent in sexuality.

I am glad you are finished with the issue since I cannot imagine how you can further warp this than it already is.

 

[numinus]

Your whole argument seems to boil down to one point: you deny the existence of love (not sex) between homosexual people.

No. What I am saying is that conjugal love is IMPOSSIBLE in the homosexual act.

There is a world of difference between that and what you ascribe to me.

I didn't say most of what you attributed to me. Your quote: "Ill repeat it for your benefit - the sexual act, by itself, whether HOMO OR HETERO, is not love. If it were so, then the prostitute would be the most loved individual on earth." has nothing to do with what I said, I'm talking about love not sex, you are the one who said that love is a "UNITIVE PROCESS" and that it "REQUIRES pro-creative activity". Make up your mind, if love requires procreative activity I suspect that means SEX--unless you have another way to procreate.

The unitive and pro-creative processes are NECESSARY and INSEPARABLE in conjugal love. Conjugal love is the basis of morality in this issue.

When I say pro-creative, it means that we are instruments to the designs of the creator. Pro-creation, therefore, doesn't start with foreplay and end in orgasm.

From my argument, NOT all heterosexual acts are moral, NOT all heterosexual acts between a man and his wife are moral. Certainly, all homosexual acts are not moral.

I think consenting adults should not be discriminated against for expressing love for other consenting adults. That seems pretty straightforward. How say you?

I'd be the first to agree with you. There is nothing moral about discriminating against someone. Then again, neither is a purely sexual act.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No. What I am saying is that conjugal love is IMPOSSIBLE in the homosexual act.

Please define exactly how you are using the bolded term above.

 

[r0beph]

I'd be the first to agree with you. There is nothing moral about discriminating against someone. Then again, neither is a purely sexual act.

This is a very subjective and thus cannot be an authoritative adjunct in this argument. Purely sexual acts, and the morality thereof is a multi faceted topic; First one has to ascribe to which morality they adhere to, one of the many religious moralities, one of personal morality, or a social morality. Second one has to determine what consists of being purely sexual. You are assuming that homosexual sex is purely sexual, when I must disagree. I love my girlfriend, while I may be bordering on the "To Much Information" realm, I also *surprise* have sexual relations with my girlfriend. This "act" is not purely sexual, while sexual gratification is definitely part of the reason and why, if I did not love her, I would never sleep with her. So is this purely sexual since it does include a clause that requires an emotional bond? How can this paradoxical assertion be supported, this I'll enjoy hearing. Please note that while this is indeed heterosexual, there is no reproductive reasoning and infact steps to insure reproduction does not occur are taken, I can thus assert that this differs in action very little from homosexual sex; aside that it is between a man and woman, the facts surround this aside from the heterosexual designation differ in no way from homosexual sex. Thus I must disagree that all homosexual sex is purely for sexual reasons since emotional bonding does in fact exist between homosexual partners. Unless you are also proposing that homosexuals cannot love each other.


While the common (im)moral "majority" seems to assume that the misleading "homosexual" designation is simply a matter of sex, this is a very common misconception. While sex does exist often between homosexual partners, there are a large number of homosexuals who do not even have sex in any form if not very rarely, and thus sex is not even at issue. The "Sexuality" portion of heterosexual/homosexual does not directly regard sexual relations, but is slightly misnomeric and in fact refers to the majority attractant gender to the party in question.

 

[numinus]

Please define exactly how you are using the bolded term above.

The love necessary for the most fundamental human association - family.

 

[numinus]

This is a very subjective and thus cannot be an authoritative adjunct in this argument. Purely sexual acts, and the morality thereof is a multi faceted topic; First one has to ascribe to which morality they adhere to, one of the many religious moralities, one of personal morality, or a social morality. Second one has to determine what consists of being purely sexual.

Morality is NOT a subjective thing.

If it were, any action concieveable by human imagination can be argued to be moral.

So, a 'subjective' morality is meaningless.

You are assuming that homosexual sex is purely sexual, when I must disagree. I love my girlfriend, while I may be bordering on the "To Much Information" realm, I also *surprise* have sexual relations with my girlfriend. This "act" is not purely sexual, while sexual gratification is definitely part of the reason and why, if I did not love her, I would never sleep with her. So is this purely sexual since it does include a clause that requires an emotional bond? How can this paradoxical assertion be supported, this I'll enjoy hearing.

There is nothing paradoxical about it.

What I'm saying is that morality represents the HIGHEST standard of human action - when all subjective ends become subordinate to a PRINCIPLE that is GOOD IN ITSELF.

Now, there are many reasons why we engage in sex. The only reason that conforms with morality is that which is BOTH UNITIVE AND PRO-CREATIVE.

Sex that does not involve both this aspects is INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE.

Please note that while this is indeed heterosexual, there is no reproductive reasoning and infact steps to insure reproduction does not occur are taken, I can thus assert that this differs in action very little from homosexual sex; aside that it is between a man and woman, the facts surround this aside from the heterosexual designation differ in no way from homosexual sex. Thus I must disagree that all homosexual sex is purely for sexual reasons since emotional bonding does in fact exist between homosexual partners. Unless you are also proposing that homosexuals cannot love each other.

This has been the argument from the very beginning.

Sex is a NATURAL human inclination - as natural as defecating. Do we also attach a moral imprimatur to your morning ritual, then?

As in ALL human inclinations, they must be made subservient to RATIONAL LAW or PRINCIPLE.

While the common (im)moral "majority" seems to assume that the misleading "homosexual" designation is simply a matter of sex, this is a very common misconception. While sex does exist often between homosexual partners, there are a large number of homosexuals who do not even have sex in any form if not very rarely, and thus sex is not even at issue. The "Sexuality" portion of heterosexual/homosexual does not directly regard sexual relations, but is slightly misnomeric and in fact refers to the majority attractant gender to the party in question.

Can one be a homosexual if one does not engage in the homosexual act?

I am not competent to argue the genetic nature of this act, nor do I wish to. I am even willing to accept that everyone has some homosexual inclinations in vastly different amounts.

In the end, only rational principles (kant calls them the principle of the will), that attaches moral worth to any human actions.

 

[vyo476]

Morality is NOT a subjective thing.

If it were, any action concieveable by human imagination can be argued to be moral.

So, a 'subjective' morality is meaningless.

And a non-subjective morality is necessarily limited. That's why we allow people of all faiths to participate in our government.

What is "morally correct" for one person could be "morally incorrect" for another. Morals are an invention of human society - one way of expressing the reasoning behind social norms and values. As society changes so do the norms and values - and so does the moral code. There is no universal morality because there is no universal society.

 

[numinus]

And a non-subjective morality is necessarily limited. That's why we allow people of all faiths to participate in our government.

What is "morally correct" for one person could be "morally incorrect" for another. Morals are an invention of human society - one way of expressing the reasoning behind social norms and values. As society changes so do the norms and values - and so does the moral code. There is no universal morality because there is no universal society.

You said it yourself - VALUES.

The word is utterly MEANINGLESS without a FIXED standard from which you measure it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The love necessary for the most fundamental human association - family.

And you are saying that homosexual people cannot--by definition--have that love?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Morality is NOT a subjective thing.

If it were, any action concieveable by human imagination can be argued to be moral.

So, a 'subjective' morality is meaningless.

And herein lies the fallacy of your argument. Morality IS subjective, it depends on the circumstances. For instance I suppose that you would think that rape is wrong--not much argument there I suppose? But what about when Jehovah said that virgins could be taken as the spoils of war and raped by the men who slaughtered their families? That seems a little subjective to me. Check it out in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

I don't know that ANY action conceivable by human imagination could be argued to be moral--that's kind of a sweeping statement. But you may be correct in light of the fact that people on this forum are arguing for the necessity of torturing people.

You want morality to be objective, but you want it to be based on YOUR religious understanding. Funny thing is that lots of people have religious understandings that come directly from God just like yours (or so they say) and they disagree with you. That too sounds pretty subjective.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You said it yourself - VALUES.

The word is utterly MEANINGLESS without a FIXED standard from which you measure it.

It doesn't have much meaning until the people decide what standards to adopt, and those standards change as people change. Interracial marriage was forbidden a few decades ago and now it's okay.

You want a fixed source from which to derive your moral standards AND THERE ISN'T ONE. Sorry, your religion is just "your religion" and no more important or holy or closer to god than anyone else's religion.

 

[numinus]

It doesn't have much meaning until the people decide what standards to adopt, and those standards change as people change. Interracial marriage was forbidden a few decades ago and now it's okay.

You want a fixed source from which to derive your moral standards AND THERE ISN'T ONE. Sorry, your religion is just "your religion" and no more important or holy or closer to god than anyone else's religion.

And since when is religion the same with morality, eh?

Oh, there's a fixed source, alright. Its called HUMAN REASON.