Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[r0beph]

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.

I must disagree. You have no basis for this argument except for your close minded bigotry. You'd love for it to be a choice because you cannot face the fact that it may have causation in nature. This is beyond you. Your attempt at analogous comparison falls much to short, left handedness and crime? Are you comparing Sexual Attraction to a specific physical (neurological design) trait?

While you assert that this is a choice, I must question this on several levels. Why then are the majority of men attracted to women? Why are the majority of women attracted to men? Is this simply a choice they made after their life leading up to the point of sexual maturity when these feelings begin to arise? Or is it rather something encoded into our design that ensures reproduction. If the latter is your choice I must then point out the flaw in your argument; If we are by nature attracted to the opposite sex for purposes of reproduction, then it is also inherent in this design that the possibility must certainly exist for the male of the species to inherit the female drives. You can see in nature many extremes of gender ambiguation... The most observable and apparent are the physical asexual and hermaphroditic genders. One is niether one is both, these exist in nature, while not exceptionally proliferated they do occur. Now just for the sake of the argument before you point out the differential in the rarity of physical gender ambiguation vs. that of homosexuality, I'll have you understand that society in general has often frowned upon homosexuality from today to the times of history's inception. In this many homosexuals by nature have reproduced in great numbers, where as typically hermaphrodites, and by nature asexuals, are sterile. This allows for the continuation of genes that contain the incorrect sequences for sexual attraction\gender typing in lineages. I'm sure you'll bring some moral something or other into the fray, but let me simply disagree with any of that. Morality has nothing to do with what you are attracted to, it's either a neurophysical causation or an environmental causation (environmental causations usually exist in abuse syndromes, pedophelia, sexual addiction, etc, however homosexuality itself is rare in this)

In finality let me propose that rather than homosexuality being a choice at large, it is rather the choice to accept what they feel due to nature and not be oppressed by faulty cultural standards imposed by bigots and short minded people. That is the choice they make. To ignore the spittle spraying and mindless hatred of those who cannot accept anything outside their little box; If a homosexual chooses to be heterosexual he is going against nature. That, the inverse of your proposal, is the way it is....


Please climb out of your little cozy box and learn to be a bit more mindful of those around you. I think the one with the morality issues are the ones who can't keep their asinine idiotheocratic palsy of the mind to themselves.

 

[numinus]

I must disagree. You have no basis for this argument except for your close minded bigotry. You'd love for it to be a choice because you cannot face the fact that it may have causation in nature. This is beyond you. Your attempt at analogous comparison falls much to short, left handedness and crime? Are you comparing Sexual Attraction to a specific physical (neurological design) trait?

I'm the closed-minded bigot, eh?

And what exactly are you suggesting - that an inclination need dominate the choices of an individual imbued with FREE WILL.

Isn't that the reason for having free will in the first place - to sublime what base inclinations one have towards a rational and moral good?

While you assert that this is a choice, I must question this on several levels. Why then are the majority of men attracted to women? Why are the majority of women attracted to men? Is this simply a choice they made after their life leading up to the point of sexual maturity when these feelings begin to arise? Or is it rather something encoded into our design that ensures reproduction. If the latter is your choice I must then point out the flaw in your argument; If we are by nature attracted to the opposite sex for purposes of reproduction, then it is also inherent in this design that the possibility must certainly exist for the male of the species to inherit the female drives. You can see in nature many extremes of gender ambiguation... The most observable and apparent are the physical asexual and hermaphroditic genders. One is niether one is both, these exist in nature, while not exceptionally proliferated they do occur. Now just for the sake of the argument before you point out the differential in the rarity of physical gender ambiguation vs. that of homosexuality, I'll have you understand that society in general has often frowned upon homosexuality from today to the times of history's inception. In this many homosexuals by nature have reproduced in great numbers, where as typically hermaphrodites, and by nature asexuals, are sterile. This allows for the continuation of genes that contain the incorrect sequences for sexual attraction\gender typing in lineages. I'm sure you'll bring some moral something or other into the fray, but let me simply disagree with any of that. Morality has nothing to do with what you are attracted to, it's either a neurophysical causation or an environmental causation (environmental causations usually exist in abuse syndromes, pedophelia, sexual addiction, etc, however homosexuality itself is rare in this)

And what does this say about responsibility for one's actions?

Sadly, you didn't mention it - not one peep.

In finality let me propose that rather than homosexuality being a choice at large, it is rather the choice to accept what they feel due to nature and not be oppressed by faulty cultural standards imposed by bigots and short minded people. That is the choice they make. To ignore the spittle spraying and mindless hatred of those who cannot accept anything outside their little box; If a homosexual chooses to be heterosexual he is going against nature. That, the inverse of your proposal, is the way it is....

Seems you're doing more of the spittle-spraying yourself.

So every manifestation of one's inclination is necessarily good?

Unbelievable!

Please climb out of your little cozy box and learn to be a bit more mindful of those around you. I think the one with the morality issues are the ones who can't keep their asinine idiotheocratic palsy of the mind to themselves.

The study of all aspects of human existence will proceed whatever you pretend to feel about it.

It is my experience that the people who abrasively espouse moral relativity are the one's who wish to absolve themselves from the responsibility of their actions.

It simply is unprecedented.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Murder is a contrived concept in human law. It is ALWAYS wrong. Killing on the other hand, is justifiable.

The definitions of "murder" and "killing" are very fluid in human culture, what is just killing in one may be murder in another.

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

What good does it do to post a principle all in capitals and not give the principle? I could refute your principle with FLAGLER'S LAW, and how would you know whether it applied? Why post stuff the requires explanation without explaining it? Does it make you feel superior?

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

I never said that, I stated that it happens all the time in most cultures and no one seems to get into a twist about it. Didn't say I agreed with it.

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

Did I say that? No. Recognition of the truth is not necessarily an endorsement of said truth.

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.

I still see no connection between your calculus and morality. This seems to be a continuation of your idea that Human Reason is an absolute on which morality can be definitively based even though there does not appear to a single shred of proof of this claim.

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

Aren't you the one that said ethics was a science just like math? Obviously it isn't or we would all get the same answers to the problems, yet down through history there has never been a consensus about what constitutes moral behavior.

As I said - ASYMPTOTIC.

As I said, you've made no connection between asymptotic and morality.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You do not think that some intuitive knowledge is logical?

Can an intuitive thought process yield a logical answer, yes. Your point being?

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

You have made obscure references to axioms but have not given one that bears on the issue at hand as far as I know. The whole business about axioms appears to be another of the things you have posted with inadequate explanation to show its relevance to morality.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

If one follows your line of reasoning, then all actions are choice. Even eating and excreting are choices since there are people who refuse to do those things. It's irrelevant to this discussion however because you are using that line of reasoning to place blame (your accusation of their attempt to "avoid responsibility") when in point of fact it has not been established that there is anything wrong with being homosexual or homosexual contact between consenting adults.

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.

There is--in my mind--a fundamental difference between expressing one of the strongest innate drives in the mammalian species (sexual expression) and deciding to commit crimes. Even the comparison is denigrating to homosexual people in that it compares their expressions of sexual desire to criminal activities. You seem quite biased in your regard of them. Why? As yet you've shown nothing to prove that homosexuality is harmful.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So every manifestation of one's inclination is necessarily good?

Unbelievable!

That's dishonest, Numi, he didn't say, or even imply, that. You are taking a statement about one aspect of human activity--expression of sexual desire--and extending it to every aspect of human inclination. Let's stick to the subject at hand. We are discussing human sexuality between consenting adults and so far there seems to be nothing to prove that homosexuality is wrong or bad.

 

[r0beph]

I'm the closed-minded bigot, eh?

And what exactly are you suggesting - that an inclination need dominate the choices of an individual imbued with FREE WILL.

Isn't that the reason for having free will in the first place - to sublime what base inclinations one have towards a rational and moral good?

Let us see... Bigot, n. - Person extremely intolerant of others and irrespective of reasoning.
I am using nothing more than reasoning, you on the other hand are misplacing reasonable objectivity with a subjective morality argument.

And what does this say about responsibility for one's actions?

Sadly, you didn't mention it - not one peep.

Well I believe that we have free will, although this free will is somewhat limited by our predetermined template. Our attractions are imbued. We cannot change these. I like spicy food, my girlfriend doesn't....She has the choice to eat the spicy food but it doesn't sit well with her. She also hates onions, which I love, they make her nauseated. I have the choice to date guys, but I don't, not due to a moral reasoning but because the thought of any relations with a man sickens ME. This distaste for the idea however is not related to my views on homosexuality in others, which I've no problem with, it's simply not for me. Now the inverse, the homosexual male, may find that the idea of being with a woman leaves them with as much disgust as the thought of myself with a man does. Where does free will fit in to this? You're correct in saying they have the choice, you're correct in that they could feasibly choose to be with a woman, however you're forgetting that to them it is simply not a viable choice. I don't understand how homosexuality is wrong? What is wrong about you. You say it is "unnatural" but to them it is very natural, this is a paradoxical argument. You're argument is not that they don't have those urges but that they have the choice to follow those urges, very true, but. It's all a bunch of chaotic straw grasping in an attempt to support a notion that is riding on glass tires.

Seems you're doing more of the spittle-spraying yourself.

So every manifestation of one's inclination is necessarily good?

Unbelievable!

As mare points out, I did not say any sort of such thing. There are many inclinations and attractions which have a negative impact on ones life or the lives of others. Addictions, sexual deviancy that includes victimization (pedophelia, drug addictions, violent behaviors etc) are obviously in this category, however I fail to see the relevance in this thread, as there are no victims of homosexuality, unless your closed mind is victimized by someone falling outside the ideal "morality" you've imposed. The problem is that the human mind is as hidden from us at this current point of technological and medical advancement, however it's pretty obvious and well documented from what we know not only about humans but animals in general, that we all have built in drives and those drives shape our very persona. We as human's whether or not free will is true or drive based, we do carry responsibilities to corral those drives which would harm us or others, so to answer you question no, we do have responsibility for the choices we make. Homosexuality and the choice to follow the natural drive they have, is however, not a negative impacting choice.

The study of all aspects of human existence will proceed whatever you pretend to feel about it.

It is my experience that the people who abrasively espouse moral relativity are the one's who wish to absolve themselves from the responsibility of their actions.

It simply is unprecedented.

Lol. My own actions? Perhaps this is a veiled attempt to out me as a homosexual. I feel no need for absolution from anything I've chosen to do (drive based or otherwise). I live a pretty simple life, I work, I come home, I spend time with my girlfriend, my greatest vice is the internet and cigarettes, I rarely even drink. What I do have however is a rather unfathomable irritation at those who choose to remain close minded and refuse to accept that others are simply not you and do not apply the restrictive assumptive morality that you've chosen. Morality itself is pure subjectivity. Morality in my opinion consists of little more but compassion, empathy, and understanding.


“Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.” - John F. Kennedy

 

[numinus]

The definitions of "murder" and "killing" are very fluid in human culture, what is just killing in one may be murder in another.

What separates the two is HUMAN LAW.

A legal imperative carries the force of law. A moral imperative is a good in itself.

What good does it do to post a principle all in capitals and not give the principle? I could refute your principle with FLAGLER'S LAW, and how would you know whether it applied? Why post stuff the requires explanation without explaining it? Does it make you feel superior?

Forgive me. I thought it was apparent.

For killing in self-defense to be valid, it must be done only with the force necessary to deter one's assailant, and if possible, save the assailant's life.

I never said that, I stated that it happens all the time in most cultures and no one seems to get into a twist about it. Didn't say I agreed with it.

Which is exactly what I am saying. Morality represents the ideal condition for human existence.

A practical necessity is simply that - a practical necessity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this ideal.

Did I say that? No. Recognition of the truth is not necessarily an endorsement of said truth.

What are you saying?

Isn't what I said the implications of moral relativity?

Remember - what one OUGHT to do vs. what one WANTS to do.

I still see no connection between your calculus and morality. This seems to be a continuation of your idea that Human Reason is an absolute on which morality can be definitively based even though there does not appear to a single shred of proof of this claim.

You wanted a definition. Morality is undefined.

That doesn't mean its not there. One merely need to look around to see that the ends for which human society exists APPROACHES what is essentially IDEAL AND UNDEFINED.

Aren't you the one that said ethics was a science just like math? Obviously it isn't or we would all get the same answers to the problems, yet down through history there has never been a consensus about what constitutes moral behavior.

You do not consider the universal declaration of human rights, for instance, as an attempt to define this universal morality?

Granted that not everyone agrees, some sort of consensus about the necessary conditions of human existence is already there.

As I said, you've made no connection between asymptotic and morality.

For something that is conceptually undefined, one can still say something logical about it, no?

In fact, the whole of calculus is about this thing that is undefined.

 

[numinus]

Can an intuitive thought process yield a logical answer, yes. Your point being?

The point being, ALL human knowledge necessarily proceed from an intuitive statement of fact.

This statement of fact is NOT provable by logical rigor.

It is true simply because it's negation results in a logical paradox or outright fallacy.

You have made obscure references to axioms but have not given one that bears on the issue at hand as far as I know. The whole business about axioms appears to be another of the things you have posted with inadequate explanation to show its relevance to morality.

Logical axioms have direct bearing on ALL fields of human inquiry.

Or did you think that axioms are used only in math?

 

[numinus]

If one follows your line of reasoning, then all actions are choice. Even eating and excreting are choices since there are people who refuse to do those things.

And the natural consequences of such a choice is solely their responsibility to bear, no?

The operations of causation is inevitable.

It's irrelevant to this discussion however because you are using that line of reasoning to place blame (your accusation of their attempt to "avoid responsibility") when in point of fact it has not been established that there is anything wrong with being homosexual or homosexual contact between consenting adults.

I didn't say homosexuals deserve blame.

I said that the GENETICS ARGUMENT is an attempt to divorce responsibility from one's choice.

Isn't that the reason why there is a genetic argument for homosexuality to begin with?

Isn't that the reason why you need to legislate something that is clearly within the exclusive province of choice?

There is--in my mind--a fundamental difference between expressing one of the strongest innate drives in the mammalian species (sexual expression) and deciding to commit crimes. Even the comparison is denigrating to homosexual people in that it compares their expressions of sexual desire to criminal activities. You seem quite biased in your regard of them. Why? As yet you've shown nothing to prove that homosexuality is harmful.

Biased, you say?

Didn't I expressly state that there is no moral worth in BOTH homo and hetero-eroticism in themselves?

Didn't I expressly state that actions derive their moral worth from the dictates of duty - the principles of which can be found in the operation of the reasoning faculty?

 

[jb_1430]

Im attracted to my left hand, but hey, its a biological thing, I have no choice in the matter, I was born that way. Lefty and I hope to be able to marry some day.

 

[Vitiate]

There's a possibility that it's genentic. There's a sex determining gene called the SRY gene located on the Y chromosome of males. This gene activates the proliferation of products such as Testosterone. As most know, both males and females have varying amounts of estrogen and testosterone. If there are issues with the SRY gene, it is known that this will alter the amount of testosterone production. The product is usually proliferated as a dominant mutation otherwise known as Tfm, or Testicular feminization. So it's very possible that homosexuality can be derived from issues stemming in the variability of natural testosterone.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And the natural consequences of such a choice is solely their responsibility to bear, no?

What consequences would it be that YOU think they are trying to avoid? I'm intrigued because the only consequences that I am aware of is the sh*tstorm that religious people visit on them for their supposed "sin."

The operations of causation is inevitable.

Not according to quantum physics, causality may be just an illusion.

I didn't say homosexuals deserve blame. I said that the GENETICS ARGUMENT is an attempt to divorce responsibility from one's choice.

As I asked above: what is it that they are seeking to avoid responsibility for? The fact that you see them as trying to escape responsibilty for something suggests that YOU see them as doing something wrong for which YOU think they are trying to escape responsibility.

Isn't that the reason why there is a genetic argument for homosexuality to begin with?

Science. Have you ever heard of that? It's the study of things, all kinds of things, and not just things that somebody is trying to escape responsibility for either. Christians used to condemn alcoholics for "moral turpitude" and claim that they were just people of weak moral fiber--same nonsense that is being shoveled out on homosexuals by Christians today. Science (you've heard of science, haven't you?) they studied the subject and discovered that alcohol is a poison to some groups of people who have a genetic weakness that makes them especially susceptible to its effects. It wasn't alcoholics who discovered this and it's not homosexuals who are doing all the research on the genetic factors in sexual orientation either. We study to learn.

Isn't that the reason why you need to legislate something that is clearly within the exclusive province of choice?

No, what we are trying to legislate is getting equal rights for all consenting adults--you know, like the US Constitution says. Religion is the only reason for the hate directed at homosexual and transsexual people, just like religion was used to justify hate towards black people, crippled people, people of other religions, women, and anyone else who was different.

Biased, you say? Didn't I expressly state that there is no moral worth in BOTH homo and hetero-eroticism in themselves?

Didn't I expressly state that actions derive their moral worth from the dictates of duty - the principles of which can be found in the operation of the reasoning faculty?

Your whole argument of duty-principles was semantically null, I was going by the tone of all the other stuff you wrote--see all of the above.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The point being, ALL human knowledge necessarily proceed from an intuitive statement of fact.
This statement of fact is NOT provable by logical rigor.
It is true simply because it's negation results in a logical paradox or outright fallacy.

Logical axioms have direct bearing on ALL fields of human inquiry.

Or did you think that axioms are used only in math?

Intuitive a : the act or process of coming to direct knowledge or certainty without reasoning or inferring : immediate cognizance or conviction without rational thought : revelation by insight or innate knowledge : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge, perception, or conviction gained by intuition <trusting ... to what are called intuitions rather than reasoned conclusions -- A.C.Benson> c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without rational thought and inference d in Bergsonism : a form of knowing that is akin to instinct or a divining empathy and that gives direct insight into reality as it is in itself and absolutely e : quick and ready insight <with one of her quick leaps of intuition she had entered into the other's soul -- Edith Wharton

I don't know how you are using the word "intuitive". Is the dictionary definition above accurate according to your understanding? If it is, then I disagree with each and every statement that you made in the above post.

I still have not seen any examples of these "axioms" about which to speak so often.

How can it be that if a "...statement of fact is NOT provable by logical rigor." can result in a "logical paradox"? A logical paradox can, by definition, ONLY be proved with logical rigor.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What separates the two is HUMAN LAW.

A legal imperative carries the force of law. A moral imperative is a good in itself.



Forgive me. I thought it was apparent.

For killing in self-defense to be valid, it must be done only with the force necessary to deter one's assailant, and if possible, save the assailant's life.



Which is exactly what I am saying. Morality represents the ideal condition for human existence.

A practical necessity is simply that - a practical necessity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this ideal.



What are you saying?

Isn't what I said the implications of moral relativity?

Remember - what one OUGHT to do vs. what one WANTS to do.



You wanted a definition. Morality is undefined.

That doesn't mean its not there. One merely need to look around to see that the ends for which human society exists APPROACHES what is essentially IDEAL AND UNDEFINED.



You do not consider the universal declaration of human rights, for instance, as an attempt to define this universal morality?

Granted that not everyone agrees, some sort of consensus about the necessary conditions of human existence is already there.



For something that is conceptually undefined, one can still say something logical about it, no?

In fact, the whole of calculus is about this thing that is undefined.

This whole post is so full of undefined, unsupported, and fuzzy statements that I can't even begin to respond to it. Where in the world did you come up with this mish-mash of ideas that you have strung together here?