Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

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

If HUMAN REASON was a fixed source as you claim, then by now we would all agree on what absolute morality is, but the truth is that there is no consensus--not even murder is universally proscribed.

I used the reference to religion because that's how most people determine their moral standards. They refer to Holy Books and the counsel of Preachers or Priests. I didn't say I agreed with it, I just indicated that it is often done that way.

Human reason is no more a "fixed" source than religion.

 

[vyo476]

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

I think you should read some Erving Goffman.

 

[numinus]

If HUMAN REASON was a fixed source as you claim, then by now we would all agree on what absolute morality is, but the truth is that there is no consensus--not even murder is universally proscribed.

You probably meant 'killing'.

Murder is forbidden universally. The laws that define it, however, varies somewhat.

Think of morality as asymptotic - which a functional relation approaches but would never intersect.

I used the reference to religion because that's how most people determine their moral standards. They refer to Holy Books and the counsel of Preachers or Priests. I didn't say I agreed with it, I just indicated that it is often done that way.

Have you seen me post any theological argument?

Why then, do you respond to me as if I were?

Human reason is no more a "fixed" source than religion.

It is fixed in mathematics, isn't it?

And isn't ethics just another field of human inquiry like mathematics?

 

[numinus]

I think you should read some Erving Goffman.

I think I am not inclined to go on a fool's errand on your say so.

 

[numinus]

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

And are you saying that human fecundity inherent in any discussion of family can result from ANY homosexual union?

 

[numinus]

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.

And you're inclined to derive your morality from the bible? Even those passages that were clearly describing a distinct and separate cultural and historical milleiu?

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.

Exactly!

See how moral subjectivity can subvert even the most intuitive principle?

And what is the sense in obeying the law, when the law cannot be applied universally.

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.

When have I used religious dogma in my arguments?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And are you saying that human fecundity inherent in any discussion of family can result from ANY homosexual union?

Of course, homosexual people have children all the time the same way that heterosexual people with fertility problems have children.

If you are arguing that homosexual families are inherently "less than" heterosexual families because they sometimes require help having babies, then you have to equally condemn any heterosexual couple that can't have children without help as well.

Everything I have seen of your argument has been you setting up arbitrary standards to exclude some people--you say it's not for religious reasons, but yet you have not given any reason for it either.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You probably meant 'killing'.

No, I meant "murder". This may be an issue of definition more than anything else, it's interesting to note that the Bible is being changed now so that the 6th Commandment says "murder" and not "kill" the way it used to.

Murder is forbidden universally. The laws that define it, however, varies somewhat.

What planet do you live on? It would be closer to the truth to say that murder is universally accepted. War and politics both condone and practice it. Religion's accept it--in fact DEMAND it--in Holy Scripture. We murder murderers, and people from who we demand blood payment for their crimes. We allow murder in self-defense, and we accept justifiable homicide for a range of offenses. How many political and religious suicide bombers have there been in the last 50 years? A completely acceptable form of mass murder by the people who do it. And according to some people we murder hundreds of thousands of human babies every year through abortion. Our political policies contribute to the deaths of tens of thousands of children every day for lack of food, clean water, and medical care while we spend more than 1 Billion dollars a week murdering people in the Middle East.

Think of morality as asymptotic - which a functional relation approaches but would never intersect.

:a formula that approaches perfect accuracy as the independent variable increases indefinitely. I think that you will need to explain how morality fits into this definition of asymptotic.

Have you seen me post any theological argument?
Why then, do you respond to me as if I were?

Because you post like a religious person who is trying to use stealth and faux science to push a religious agenda. If that's not what you are doing then you have my sincerest apology, and would you please present something to support your definitions?

It is fixed in mathematics, isn't it? And isn't ethics just another field of human inquiry like mathematics?

No, every person can do the math and come up with the same answer, but ethical standards cannot be quantified yet--maybe they never will be. If your idea was correct, then we should have absolute laws that apply to everyone all the time just like mathematics does, but we don't.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And you're inclined to derive your morality from the bible? Even those passages that were clearly describing a distinct and separate cultural and historical milleiu?

No, actually I'm not, I keep thinking that you are basing your position somewhere in religion--again, if I'm wrong then I'm sorry. But you haven't provided any support for your position.

Exactly! See how moral subjectivity can subvert even the most intuitive principle? And what is the sense in obeying the law, when the law cannot be applied universally.

But you said that HUMAN REASON was fixed? So what point are you trying to make here with the "intuitive" being "subverted"?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't know, Numi, we seem to have drifted along way from the original subject. Why don't you restate your position vis a vis homosexual choice or genetics so we can get back to the basic issue.

 

[vyo476]

I think I am not inclined to go on a fool's errand on your say so.

A fool's errand...? That's a bit harsh.

Bottom line: There's no such thing as universal morality. There is universal logic, but logic and morality are two different things. The whole dichotomy of "right and wrong" derives from the concepts of "good and evil" which in turn derive from the concepts of "desirable and undesirable," which are emotional states and therefore not logical. Logic and morality overlap in many cases, yes, but that does not make them the same thing.

 

[numinus]

No, I meant "murder". This may be an issue of definition more than anything else, it's interesting to note that the Bible is being changed now so that the 6th Commandment says "murder" and not "kill" the way it used to.

Murder is a contrived concept in human law. It is ALWAYS wrong.

Killing on the other hand, is justifiable.

The only thing that justifies it is by self-defense, which morality dictates, must conform to the PRINCIPLE OF NON-CULPABLE SELF DEFENSE.

What planet do you live on? It would be closer to the truth to say that murder is universally accepted. War and politics both condone and practice it. Religion's accept it--in fact DEMAND it--in Holy Scripture. We murder murderers, and people from who we demand blood payment for their crimes. We allow murder in self-defense, and we accept justifiable homicide for a range of offenses. How many political and religious suicide bombers have there been in the last 50 years? A completely acceptable form of mass murder by the people who do it. And according to some people we murder hundreds of thousands of human babies every year through abortion. Our political policies contribute to the deaths of tens of thousands of children every day for lack of food, clean water, and medical care while we spend more than 1 Billion dollars a week murdering people in the Middle East.

And I suppose that you live in a planet where murder is morally justified?

Where something that happens on a large extent necessarily represents the natural state of human existence?

I suggest you confine your wars and murders to yourself and your planet.

:a formula that approaches perfect accuracy as the independent variable increases indefinitely. I think that you will need to explain how morality fits into this definition of asymptotic.

Calculus defines the functional value as it APPROACHES the asymptotic limit even though it is clearly UNDEFINED.

f(x)=1/x approaches infinity as x approaches 0. Never mind that 1/0 has no conceptual existence.

Same can be said about morality.

Because you post like a religious person who is trying to use stealth and faux science to push a religious agenda. If that's not what you are doing then you have my sincerest apology, and would you please present something to support your definitions?

And a religious person would necessarily turn to mathematics and science to further an argument, eh?

No, every person can do the math and come up with the same answer, but ethical standards cannot be quantified yet--maybe they never will be. If your idea was correct, then we should have absolute laws that apply to everyone all the time just like mathematics does, but we don't.

As I said - ASYMPTOTIC.

 

[numinus]

No, actually I'm not, I keep thinking that you are basing your position somewhere in religion--again, if I'm wrong then I'm sorry. But you haven't provided any support for your position.

Then let's keep the bible out of this, and proceed on a purely ontological level, ok?

But you said that HUMAN REASON was fixed? So what point are you trying to make here with the "intuitive" being "subverted"?

You do not think that some intuitive knowledge is logical?

Haven't I mentioned the nature of axioms to you yet?

 

[numinus]

A fool's errand...? That's a bit harsh.

Bottom line: There's no such thing as universal morality. There is universal logic, but logic and morality are two different things. The whole dichotomy of "right and wrong" derives from the concepts of "good and evil" which in turn derive from the concepts of "desirable and undesirable," which are emotional states and therefore not logical. Logic and morality overlap in many cases, yes, but that does not make them the same thing.

Oh, you are saying that morality is not a human field of inquiry.

Philosophy may be divided roughly into the nature of their inquiries - namely - metaphysics, political/social philosophy, ethics, aesthetics.

The natural sciences, btw, is merely a specialized field of inquiry under metaphysics.

At the heart of all human inquires is the immutable operation of logic.

 

[numinus]

I don't know, Numi, we seem to have drifted along way from the original subject. Why don't you restate your position vis a vis homosexual choice or genetics so we can get back to the basic issue.

Homosexuality is fundamentally a choice.

Arguments for genetics is merely a way to make people feel good about their choice, and possibly, avoid responsibility.

It is much like the statistical correlation between crime and left-handedness. While one may argue ad infinitum for such a correlation, it is ultimately irrelevant to the the responsibility attached to one's choices.