Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[vyo476]

It's official. I have absolutely no idea what the hell you two are talking about.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It's official. I have absolutely no idea what the hell you two are talking about.

If you are referring to my post #195, then I agree, I have no idea what Numi is saying. If you are targeting one of my other posts, then please tell me and I'll try to explain more fully. Sorry, don't mean to be obscure.

 

[vyo476]

If you are referring to my post #195, then I agree, I have no idea what Numi is saying. If you are targeting one of my other posts, then please tell me and I'll try to explain more fully. Sorry, don't mean to be obscure.

It's definitely more Numinus than you, although your more recent attempts to make sense of what he's been saying has just been gibberish to me. Perhaps if he'd just lay out his argument in totality than we could clear this whole thing up.

Don't bother trying to explain yourself, Mare. Since I can't understand what Numinous is saying, trying to understand what you're saying (which is in direct relation to what he's saying) would be rather like trying to learn how to read without first learning the alphabet. Thanks for the offer, though.

 

[numinus]

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."

Religious people I know are very intelligent and are extremely tolerant as a result of their faith.

I don't know what sort of religious people you consort with.

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

I wasn't aware we have shifted the argument to quantum physics.

The only time sub-atomic particles do not behave according to causal physical laws is within the limits of heisenberg's uncertainty.

What's that got to do with homosexual behavior?

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.

What do you think a homosexual gene implies?

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.

If learning is the sole motivation for this question, then by all means, proceed.

No, what we are trying to legislate is getting equal rights for all consenting adults--you know, like the US Constitution says.

How exactly does a homosexual not get equal rights under the us constitution, hmm?

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.

You give so much credit to religion.

An intolerant person will use any reason to indulge in intolerance - with or without religion.

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.

Semantically null? What an overly-verbose statement.

If there is anything meaningless around here, it is MORAL RELATIVITY.

And if you really wish to think about the implications of ethics, ask yourself this - do you obey the laws of the land for the common good that accrues from conforming to it or because you are averse to the punishment consequent to disobeying it?

While both are valid reasons, one represents a higher understanding and the other fit even for beasts.

 

[numinus]

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?

From a well-rounded education.

 

[numinus]

If you are referring to my post #195, then I agree, I have no idea what Numi is saying. If you are targeting one of my other posts, then please tell me and I'll try to explain more fully. Sorry, don't mean to be obscure.

You do not understand the implications of the universal declaration of human rights?

You cannot see how it is an attempt to define a universal form of morality - in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to your moral relativity?

Do you know what this document says about the right to motherhood and the right of children?

Do you know what this document NOT say about the right to any sexual preference?

 

[numinus]

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.

No it is not accurate.

I meant a priori reasoning - but you might think I was acting smug and superior.

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

Haven't I mentioned the categorical imperative of human existence in kantian ethics - that you may not use another human being as an object of personal pleasure?

What would validate such an imperative if not itself?

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.

A paradox is a conclusion that is both true and false at the same time. Clearly they represent the limits beyond which the rules of logic break down.

There are however, psuedo-paradoxes which result in either faulty premise or logic.

The best I can think of offhand is the barber's paradox, which arises from the naive or intuitive set theory. To correct this, a set of axioms regarding set operations and membership were introduced specifically to eliminate the paradox - hence AXIOMATIC set theory.

If you look at the axioms, you would think it self-evident and completely unnecessary to state. But without them, conclusions that are incongruent and intuitively contradictory result in the most mundane logical exercise.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Religious people I know are very intelligent and are extremely tolerant as a result of their faith. I don't know what sort of religious people you consort with.

Please note that you did not address my question:
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." To answer your remarks: if you have not seen/heard the vitriolic attacks on homosexual and transsexual people being bruted about by the religious folks then you must be living under a rock. The Oregon Legislature just passed anti-discrimination legislation that was signed by the Governor guaranteeing equal protection to all under the law. Christian groups fought it and now are collecting signatures to repeal the law.

I wasn't aware we have shifted the argument to quantum physics.

Hey, if you can talk about axioms, then I can mention quantum physics.

What do you think a homosexual gene implies?

I think that finding the cause for human sexual orientation will take it out of the arena of "lifestyle choice" and put it in the arena of "natural variations in the human animal" and thus allow homosexual people to avoid the religious stigma and become full members of society without the abuse that they have traditionally received from the culture at large--just like women have achieved. It will do for homosexuality what similar research did for alcoholics--it removed them from the gunsights of the religious bigots.

If learning is the sole motivation for this question, then by all means, proceed.

Thank you.

How exactly does a homosexual not get equal rights under the us constitution, hmm?

By being denied equal protection under the law, homosexuals cannot serve openly in the military, they can be denied services, jobs, and housing, and they are the only group of consenting adults to be denied marriage. According to the Government Accounting Office there are 1049 specific rights and privileges in US Law reserved ONLY for people who are legally married, denying legal marriage rights to one group of consenting adults on religious grounds is an abrogation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

You give so much credit to religion.

I give credit where credit is due, so far no one has produced any valid argument against consenting adult homosexuals being given full legal rights. If I'm giving too much credit to religion then that implies that you know valid reasons for denying them legal rights that are not based on religion. What are those reasons please?

An intolerant person will use any reason to indulge in intolerance - with or without religion.

True, but irrelevant in this case since the Bible has more than enough scriptures condemning homosexuals to supply all the ammunition necessary for any pogrom against them.

Semantically null? What an overly-verbose statement.

You are in no position to point the finger when it comes to overly-verbose, kiddo. Actually, I don't think a two-word response could technically be called overly-verbose since that term refers to extreme wordiness--and a two-word response is hardly that.

If there is anything meaningless around here, it is MORAL RELATIVITY.

Until you can delineate a moral absolutism agreed to by everyone, then I will continue to report on the moral relativism that I see being practiced all over the world every day. You continually talk about absolutes, but you don't state them.

And if you really wish to think about the implications of ethics, ask yourself this - do you obey the laws of the land for the common good that accrues from conforming to it or because you are averse to the punishment consequent to disobeying it?

While both are valid reasons, one represents a higher understanding and the other fit even for beasts.

I have done so for many years, it's an ongoing process for any honestly introspective person I think. Did you have a point to make here?

 

[numinus]

It's definitely more Numinus than you, although your more recent attempts to make sense of what he's been saying has just been gibberish to me. Perhaps if he'd just lay out his argument in totality than we could clear this whole thing up.

You cannot understand because you cannot part with your preconcieved notions of moral relativity.

Something that is entirely relative - relativity that operates under no fixed rules - is MEANINGLESS.

Is that totality enough for you?

But I see that you are content with assuming morality is relative - like a pig content in its own ****.

 

[numinus]

Please note that you did not address my question:
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 consequences of their own sexuality.

To answer your remarks: if you have not seen/heard the vitriolic attacks on homosexual and transsexual people being bruted about by the religious folks then you must be living under a rock. The Oregon Legislature just passed anti-discrimination legislation that was signed by the Governor guaranteeing equal protection to all under the law. Christian groups fought it and now are collecting signatures to repeal the law.

And you consider collecting signatures to petition legislature a brutish act?

And I suppose you are talking about gay marriages when you say anti-discrimination legislation?

LOL

Hey, if you can talk about axioms, then I can mention quantum physics.

But axioms relate to all philosophical - hence ethical questions.

Quantum physics does not.

I think that finding the cause for human sexual orientation will take it out of the arena of "lifestyle choice" and put it in the arena of "natural variations in the human animal" and thus allow homosexual people to avoid the religious stigma and become full members of society without the abuse that they have traditionally received from the culture at large--just like women have achieved. It will do for homosexuality what similar research did for alcoholics--it removed them from the gunsights of the religious bigots.

And the right of choice and the privacy consequent to it is not enough?

Thank you.

You're welcome.

By being denied equal protection under the law, homosexuals cannot serve openly in the military, they can be denied services, jobs, and housing, and they are the only group of consenting adults to be denied marriage. According to the Government Accounting Office there are 1049 specific rights and privileges in US Law reserved ONLY for people who are legally married, denying legal marriage rights to one group of consenting adults on religious grounds is an abrogation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

Marriage is a consequence of the inalienable right of motherhood and the rights of children.

Are you saying that gay men have that same inalienable right?

I give credit where credit is due, so far no one has produced any valid argument against consenting adult homosexuals being given full legal rights. If I'm giving too much credit to religion then that implies that you know valid reasons for denying them legal rights that are not based on religion. What are those reasons please?

I am not out to deny anyone their inalienable rights.

Can one argue for a right that is clearly not there?

True, but irrelevant in this case since the Bible has more than enough scriptures condemning homosexuals to supply all the ammunition necessary for any pogrom against them.

All the more reason for one to employ his reasoning faculties, wouldn't you say?

What could be more relevant in this millieu than what I am saying?

You are in no position to point the finger when it comes to overly-verbose, kiddo. Actually, I don't think a two-word response could technically be called overly-verbose since that term refers to extreme wordiness--and a two-word response is hardly that.

Never mind.

Until you can delineate a moral absolutism agreed to by everyone, then I will continue to report on the moral relativism that I see being practiced all over the world every day. You continually talk about absolutes, but you don't state them.

I said universal declaration of human rights, didn't I?

I have done so for many years, it's an ongoing process for any honestly introspective person I think. Did you have a point to make here?

One corresponds to an OBJECTIVE GOOD. The other corresponds to a merely SUBJECTIVE GOOD.

Both accrue to some form of good - but only one is a moral good.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You cannot understand because you cannot part with your preconcieved notions of moral relativity.

Something that is entirely relative - relativity that operates under no fixed rules - is MEANINGLESS.

Is that totality enough for you?

But I see that you are content with assuming morality is relative - like a pig content in its own ****.

There's no reason for you to be so abrasive to vyo, relative is not an absolute either, there are grades of relativity dependent on the viewpoints of the people involved. You really need to give more specific definitions for the way you are using words like: relative, axiom, human reason, etc.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The consequences of their own sexuality.

Please note that you did not answer my question, for the third time: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."

And you consider collecting signatures to petition legislature a brutish act?

It depends on why you are collecting the signatures, for instance if you are collecting signatures to reinstate slavery or take the right to own property away from women or to continue legalized discrimination against people based on nothing but religious bigotry and hatred, then, yes, collecting signatures can be a brutish act. (My use of the word "bruted" was a typo, the word is actually "bruited", sorry for the confusion).

And I suppose you are talking about gay marriages when you say anti-discrimination legislation?

No, it was just jobs, housing, services, and the like. They passed a civil unions bill which is also being challenged by the Christians. What kind of Christians do you know?

But axioms relate to all philosophical - hence ethical questions. Quantum physics does not.

You still have not given any examples of these "axioms" that apply universally to all things.



I said, "I think that finding the cause for human sexual orientation will take it out of the arena of "lifestyle choice" and put it in the arena of "natural variations in the human animal" and thus allow homosexual people to avoid the religious stigma and become full members of society without the abuse that they have traditionally received from the culture at large--just like women have achieved. It will do for homosexuality what similar research did for alcoholics--it removed them from the gunsights of the religious bigots."
To which you replied:

And the right of choice and the privacy consequent to it is not enough?

If you were granted the "right of choice and the privacy consequent" but were denied all manner of legal rights, including the 1049 specific rights and privileges reserved for legally married people under US Law, would you be satisfied? You seem to be arguing for a double standard but you don't seem to want to explain why that double standard is necessary or desirable.

Marriage is a consequence of the inalienable right of motherhood and the rights of children.

Are you saying that gay men have that same inalienable right?

Are you saying that infertile hetero couples should be denied marriage? Are you saying that hetero couples who decide to adopt rather than have children of their own should be denied marriage? Are you saying that lesbian couples who birth children should be denied marriage? Are you saying that homosexual men who adopt or use a surrogate mother should be denied legal marriage? Why do some children's parents receive the rights and other children's parents get denied the same rights? Double standard--why?

I am not out to deny anyone their inalienable rights.
Can one argue for a right that is clearly not there?

Does the US Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law? Yes, it does, therefore how is it that one group of consenting adults is denied the legal contract of marriage as set forth in US Law based solely on religious dogma? How is their right to equal protection "clearly not there"?

All the more reason for one to employ his reasoning faculties, wouldn't you say?
What could be more relevant in this millieu than what I am saying?

Perhaps it might be relevant, but no one knows what you are actually saying. The idea is to write in such a way as to convey information and ideas, not to obscure and obfuscate. How is what you are saying relevant?

I said universal declaration of human rights, didn't I?

Perhaps you did, but you didn't say what it was. Please quote this "universal declaration of human rights" in it's entirety or give us a link with references to the authors and who has signed on to make it "universal".

One corresponds to an OBJECTIVE GOOD. The other corresponds to a merely SUBJECTIVE GOOD.
Both accrue to some form of good - but only one is a moral good.

That is apparently your opinion and I respect it for that, but your definitions of "objective" and "subjective" and "good" and "moral" are your own. None of them have been defined explicitly by you nor have any of them been accepted in any definition by all of humanity. What bearing does it have on our conversation?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No it is not accurate.
I meant a priori reasoning - but you might think I was acting smug and superior.
Haven't I mentioned the categorical imperative of human existence in kantian ethics - that you may not use another human being as an object of personal pleasure?
What would validate such an imperative if not itself?
A paradox is a conclusion that is both true and false at the same time. Clearly they represent the limits beyond which the rules of logic break down.
There are however, psuedo-paradoxes which result in either faulty premise or logic.
The best I can think of offhand is the barber's paradox, which arises from the naive or intuitive set theory. To correct this, a set of axioms regarding set operations and membership were introduced specifically to eliminate the paradox - hence AXIOMATIC set theory.
If you look at the axioms, you would think it self-evident and completely unnecessary to state. But without them, conclusions that are incongruent and intuitively contradictory result in the most mundane logical exercise.

Opaque, deliberately so I suspect. I certainly hope that you are not a teacher or even hoping to become one. Since you claim to dealing with universal absolutes, take all this intellectual and pseudo-intellectual posturing and produce something tangible. Use it to address and resolve one of the moral dilemas facing mankind. Take your pick, or I can suggest some.

 

[numinus]

There's no reason for you to be so abrasive to vyo, relative is not an absolute either, there are grades of relativity dependent on the viewpoints of the people involved. You really need to give more specific definitions for the way you are using words like: relative, axiom, human reason, etc.

I have given you definitions.

Ambiguity in this discussion only comes from you and your moral relativity.

You are ascribing weight to something that simply has NO MEANING.

And as if that isn't bad enough, you wish to turn the operations of this meaninglessness on and off arbitrarily - ostensibly, to suit whatever concept is currently fashionable.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have given you definitions.

Ambiguity in this discussion only comes from you and your moral relativity.

You are ascribing weight to something that simply has NO MEANING.

And as if that isn't bad enough, you wish to turn the operations of this meaninglessness on and off arbitrarily - ostensibly, to suit whatever concept is currently fashionable.

What are you chuntering on about?