Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

No, it's not genetics, and that's kind of the point. Biology does not equal genetics.

Engineering has some biology too. Does my professional affiliation qualify to say anything definitive about homosexuality, hmmm?

No, it isn't genetic. The person who titled this thread had an agenda of his own and misrepresented the two sides; one is pure choice, the other is predisposition.

I was aware of that from the beginning, and answered accordingly. No genetic predisposition can subvert the fundamental operation of free will.

Hence, CHOICE.

I have a purpose in what I do. Can you say the same?

Definitely.

This is a little juvenile.

I wasn't trying to be. I actually laughed.

It's just that everyone's definition of "moral good" is different. You're going to have to be very, very specific of how absolute good works - how something is good "in and of itself" as you've already put it.

Kantian ethics.

And it works precisely the way I said it does - when the reason for an action accrues to NO HIGHER GOOD but itself, then it is a CATEGORICAL OR A MORAL IMPERATIVE.

When one helps the poor, he does so for a variety of reasons. Only when he does so for and of itself, without consideration to this or that reason, can he claim moral worth to his own actions.

The categorical imperative here is that poverty IS NOT a condition conducive to human dignity. No other reason can be deemed higher.

The reason the Revolution wasn't "illegal" is because we won.

You need to do better than a cheesy movie rhetoric, I'm afraid.

How is this relevant?

Predispositions exist in many forms within the human person. It DOES NOT lend validity to human actions.

The APA controversial?

So I heard.

So says the man who denies that oppressed Jews during the Holocaust weren't really Jews?

What do you want me to say??? Can one really claim affiliation to a religion without its external manifestations??? One may change religions as often as one wishes, can't they???

Well, your philosophical meanderings, which have very little if anything to do with the real world, aren't exactly high in my book.

I doubt that you have read any philosophical book.

The behavioral sciences are a complex study. Note that list word. Study. Where one does experiments and accumulates actual data. As opposed to your version of studying people and society which involves...sitting around and thinking, yes?

Special and general relativity were thought experiments, fyi. So are a host of other fields in theoretical physics.

Society accepts plenty of things that aren't all that logical. The anti-sodomy laws I've mentioned before were just as much a product of society's bias than of some overbearing, deranged monarch.

And isn't that precisely the condition by which the body politic dissolves its government?

Let's see if I get your reasoning straight. You don't want to encourage fear and discrimination towards homosexuals, but preventing this takes a backseat to the operations of your logic.

Fear and discrimination towards homosexuals IS a contradiction to the operation of logic.

I don't understand how anyone could choose abstract ideas over the lives of people.

The lives of people are subject to logic as well.

Obviously.

Why did you ask, then?

And yet, when it suits your purposes, you'll use those same definitions.

I was demonstrating how it lacks rigor. So yes, it suits my purpose to use them.

So when is the traditional sibling relationship breached? What word would you assign to a breach of the traditional sibling relationship (when the line between familial love and incest is crossed)? This word must encompass all the reasons for which a heterosexual chooses a partner.

When you actually have sex with them?

Duh.

 

[Coyote]

I said BOTH UNITIVE AND PROCREATIVE.

For sex to have the moral worth of an imperative, it must conform to both - not unitive alone, nor procreative alone, certainly not for one's own pleasure.

Why...?

 

[vyo476]

This is getting out of hand. How's about we just sum up our views on the subject and go from there?

Here's mine:

Homosexuality is a predisposition. Whether or not a person acts on that predisposition is obviously a choice. There are few, if any, legitimate reasons to restrict homosexuals from engaging in activities which are, for them, completely natural. Yet, for the last few thousand years, homosexuality and homosexual activities have both been harshly punished in many societies, due to fear of difference (much like racism). One of my goals is to aid in the erasure of the social stigma that still plagues homosexuality.

I believe that homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry for two reasons: one, homosexual love is just as valid as heterosexual love, and two, the institution of marriage is today more about the joining of two people in love than anything else (biological childrearing, religious institutions, etc.). While there are a number of other minority groups that would probably buck for marriage rights as a result of fully legalized homosexual marriage (polygamists, incestuous couples, NAMBLA), they are not the issue right now. Their issue may be raised at a later time and we may logically deliberate on whether or not they should be allowed to marry.

So, in essence: To be a homosexual is not a choice. To engage in homosexual activities is a choice. To restrict homosexuals from engaging in homosexual activities is wrong. To restrict people who love each other from entering into marriage, which today is about love first and foremost, is wrong - hence homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In my lifetime there were religious people who were still beating their left-handed children and forcing them to write with the right hand because they believed that left-handedness meant that the Devil had touched the child and had some lingering evil influence.

Within the last century religious people claimed that alcoholism was due to weak moral fiber and that black people were inferior to white people and that God intended them to be slaves.

The issue here isn't really whether being gay is a choice or not, it's about putting other people down so that you can pump up your own flagging little ego. This is an endless argument. As soon as gay people get full legal rights the haters will find someone else to use for a scapegoat. Christianity has always had scapegoats: other religions, women, other Christian sects, people with dark skin, people who marry outside their own race, witches, savages, infidels, queers... they always need somebody to look down on, somebody they can be better than at any time they choose.

We really need a new name for the REAL followers of Jesus, you know, the people who actually try to obey what Jesus said were the two most important commandments in the Bible.

I realize that the discussion has gotten pretty far out in the ozone due to the input of (he who shall remain nameless lest the mods punish me for insulting him) who reminds me of my friend, Bob, who's smart enough to argue any side of any argument, but the real kicker is that he can convince himself that he's right--it's an amazing talent.

 

[r0beph]

This whole thread is based on a loaded question, as vyo points out, the answers to this question that are given, are of two different points in sexuality. The inception of sexuality and the action thereof. It's pointless to argue a question that isn't even valid. But either way, to apply moral dogma to this as such is pathetic, sexuality has no moral basis in any form, it's purely an ad hoc design, sexuality exists to cause attraction / emotional bond / etc. Morality plays no part in this...unless you are still beating your lil gilded book.

 

[r0beph]

This whole thread is based on a loaded question, as vyo points out, the answers to this question that are given, are of two different points in sexuality. The inception of sexuality and the action thereof. It's pointless to argue a question that isn't even valid. But either way, to apply moral dogma to this as such is pathetic, sexuality has no moral basis in any form, it's purely an ad hoc design, sexuality exists to cause attraction / emotional bond / etc. Morality plays no part in this...unless you are still beating your lil gilded book.

also, has anyone noticed how numinus always replies to good points with one of the following "Oh wow, you're misguided/wrong/incorrect/etc because Willy B. Jenkins/Tito Valdez/Marcus Delaney/Billy Ray Cyrus/etc said It is as it is/it isn't as it is/its not what it isn't/etc back in 1203/1603/105/732BC/etc" and acts as if it lends credence to his mistaken interpretations? *sigh* numinus, arguing with you is irritating because all you do is warp things to such an extreme its even hard to reply.

 

[r0beph]

This whole thread is based on a loaded question, as vyo points out, the answers to this question that are given, are of two different points in sexuality. The inception of sexuality and the action thereof. It's pointless to argue a question that isn't even valid. But either way, to apply moral dogma to this as such is pathetic, sexuality has no moral basis in any form, it's purely an ad hoc design, sexuality exists to cause attraction / emotional bond / etc. Morality plays no part in this...unless you are still beating your lil gilded book.

also, has anyone noticed how numinus always replies to good points with one of the following "Oh wow, you're misguided/wrong/incorrect/etc because Willy B. Jenkins/Tito Valdez/Marcus Delaney/Billy Ray Cyrus/etc said It is as it is/it isn't as it is/its not what it isn't/etc back in 1203/1603/105/732BC/etc" and acts as if it lends credence to his mistaken interpretations? *sigh* numinus, arguing with you is irritating because all you do is warp things to such an extreme its even hard to reply.


Other numunis replies to attempt to prove his authority in observations:

"I'm not sure what level of education you have but I've read this book/I'm an engineer/I downloaded a PDF/I once took a course in/etc"

"God says so" -- *this is the most laughable*

 

[numinus]

Why...?

An imperative is a COMMAND OF REASON. The ultimate justification for any two individuals to indulge in sex is for love and procreation.

Procreation without love neglects the commandment of love. Love without procreation neglects the biological imperative of the species. Sex for itself has no reason to speak of.

 

[numinus]

This is getting out of hand. How's about we just sum up our views on the subject and go from there?

Here's mine:

Homosexuality is a predisposition. Whether or not a person acts on that predisposition is obviously a choice.

Correct.

There are few, if any, legitimate reasons to restrict homosexuals from engaging in activities which are, for them, completely natural.

Good so far.

Yet, for the last few thousand years, homosexuality and homosexual activities have both been harshly punished in many societies, due to fear of difference (much like racism).

This is irrelevant to an objective discussion. It appeals to some basic emotion, which any intellectual discussion should avoid.

Nontheless, I agree.

One of my goals is to aid in the erasure of the social stigma that still plagues homosexuality.

Well said.

I believe that homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry for two reasons:

You had to ruin what is an otherwise good thing.

one, homosexual love is just as valid as heterosexual love,

You mean, conjugal love, don't you? Love between two individuals of the same gender can manifest in many forms EXCEPT conjugal love.

and two, the institution of marriage is today more about the joining of two people in love than anything else (biological childrearing, religious institutions, etc.).

No. Women have an inherent right to motherhood. Children have the right to grow in an environment conducive to their well-being. Marriage is an institution by which the state upholds and protects this right.

While there are a number of other minority groups that would probably buck for marriage rights as a result of fully legalized homosexual marriage (polygamists, incestuous couples, NAMBLA), they are not the issue right now. Their issue may be raised at a later time and we may logically deliberate on whether or not they should be allowed to marry.

The operation of logic is not contingent on your bias to a form of sexual behavior against all other forms. The law, which is applicable to all, necessarily considers its logical implications.

So, in essence: To be a homosexual is not a choice.

Wrong.

To engage in homosexual activities is a choice.

Correct.

To restrict homosexuals from engaging in homosexual activities is wrong.

Correct.

To restrict people who love each other from entering into marriage, which today is about love first and foremost, is wrong - hence homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Wrong.

LOL.

For someone who believes in moral relativity, you have a lot of inflexible do's and don'ts of your own!

 

[numinus]

This whole thread is based on a loaded question, as vyo points out, the answers to this question that are given, are of two different points in sexuality. The inception of sexuality and the action thereof. It's pointless to argue a question that isn't even valid. But either way, to apply moral dogma to this as such is pathetic,

And what do you suppose should anyone apply to human actions in discerning good and evil, hmmm?

Butt-lotion?

sexuality has no moral basis in any form, it's purely an ad hoc design, sexuality exists to cause attraction / emotional bond / etc.

You forgot the perpetuation of the species. Ironic how someone pretending competence in genetics could forget such a thing.

Morality plays no part in this...unless you are still beating your lil gilded book.

Morality plays a part when thought becomes action.

also, has anyone noticed how numinus always replies to good points with one of the following "Oh wow, you're misguided/wrong/incorrect/etc because Willy B. Jenkins/Tito Valdez/Marcus Delaney/Billy Ray Cyrus/etc said It is as it is/it isn't as it is/its not what it isn't/etc back in 1203/1603/105/732BC/etc" and acts as if it lends credence to his mistaken interpretations?

LMAO

When you pretend to discuss:

1. the effects of gravity on lorentz contraction;

2. how spacetime singularities conform to the conservation of mass and energy;

3. that the reduced planck constant is smaller than the planck constant;

4. that density can never be infinite since mass is finite;

5. that quanta of mass or energy does not behave according to general relativity;

6. and a host of other assertions too many and too absurd to mention -

What can any reasonable individual do except disagree in the most vigorous manner, eh?

*sigh* numinus, arguing with you is irritating because all you do is warp things to such an extreme its even hard to reply.

You mean your posts? It is warped enough as it is.

Other numunis replies to attempt to prove his authority in observations:

"I'm not sure what level of education you have but I've read this book/I'm an engineer/I downloaded a PDF/I once took a course in/etc"

Nope. I let my arguments speak for themselves.

"God says so" -- *this is the most laughable*

You might as well have said this, since you are entirely clueless of what your quack science really means.

 

[r0beph]

And what do you suppose should anyone apply to human actions in discerning good and evil, hmmm?

Butt-lotion?

were you dropped as a child?

You forgot the perpetuation of the species. Ironic how someone pretending competence in genetics could forget such a thing.

species reproduction is accounted for, I'm straight, I like women, I'll have children one day. Perhaps genetics twigs up the sexuality of some males in overcrowded populations? maybe that's why people are gay, to slow down reproduction so we don't burn ourselves out? Who knows, regardless of the why, it is the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, end of story.
[/quote]

Morality plays a part when thought becomes action.

Sexuality is not a "thought" it's much much more than a thought, it involves gaugeable horomonal release, physical reactions (all subconcious) , and so on, none of this has **** to do with a choice, sure you have a choice to take your now erect penis and shove it into a dog since that's perhaps what you find attractive, and just because you don't? you still are aroused by animals, which still makes you attracted to animals. It doesn't matter if you act or not, you simply are what you are. Morality and action have NO place in this conversation, anyhow, I think your morality is a scary thing, a scary thing indeed.

When you pretend to discuss:

1. the effects of gravity on lorentz contraction;

I understand this just fine.

2. how spacetime singularities conform to the conservation of mass and energy;

uhm... Hawking's radiation suffices all this, as it allows for entropy.

3. that the reduced planck constant is smaller than the planck constant;

It sure is. if Planck Constant = a and Dirac's Constant = b, a > b... prove me otherwise. not that it matters, I was referring to the actual value not the relational equality thereof.

4. that density can never be infinite since mass is finite;

While GR and SR allow for area=0, no one like that and everyone knows its somewhat of a give to actually say it's 0 area, Quantum physics does NOT allow for 0 area, which since all matter is compressed to within a plancks length of each other (which is when quantum mechanics comes into a definite full effect) GR and SR really don't count in there, since it all breaks down anyhow ...

5. that quanta of mass or energy does not behave according to general relativity;

Energy does... quantum physics is a far cry from GR however....

6. and a host of other assertions too many and too absurd to mention -

Like.... You're actually pretty intelligent!... yeh I agree, absurd.

What can any reasonable individual do except disagree in the most vigorous manner, eh?

you try to play this card, where you think everyone backs up your argument, when ANYONE who does a little looking will see that it's all a farce... sure on PAPER infinite density does come up, but alas, that requires them to fudge a bit and give a singularity a null area, which is very problematic when it comes to quantum physics....since nullspace cannot exist. It's easy to see that it's paper description and what is really going on is sort of, well, unknown.

nope. I let my arguments speak for themselves.

and well they do, everytime I read one of your posts I see a quaint little trailer, with one of those singing billy catfishes on the mantle over the electric wall heater hearth...

You might as well have said this, since you are entirely clueless of what your quack science really means.

yeah , science is quack if it doesn't support god, go ahead and say it. it's not that I'm quoting any quacks here, it's that you're just quoting the go to guys incorrectly.

 

[Coyote]

An imperative is a COMMAND OF REASON. The ultimate justification for any two individuals to indulge in sex is for love and procreation.

Why is that the ultimate "justification"?

Let us look at all the reasons for which we engage in sexual activity:

lust
love
social bonding
procreation

Now what gives any one a higher value or justification then another or any two of them? For example: love (which I agree with) and procreation. That rules out all infertile couples, elderly couples and of course gays.

Procreation without love neglects the commandment of love. Love without procreation neglects the biological imperative of the species. Sex for itself has no reason to speak of.

The biological imperative of the species is not individual procreation alone. Not in social species. Love without procreation can mean stronger social bonds and by extension - greater stability for the group as a whole without the added onus of too many breeding individuals.

 

[Coyote]

No. Women have an inherent right to motherhood. Children have the right to grow in an environment conducive to their well-being. Marriage is an institution by which the state upholds and protects this right.

This is where I see a major fallacy:

How does allowing homosexuals to marry effect a woman's inherent right to motherhood or ability to get married? I mean, gays aren't exactly going to go around and say - damn, can't marry my true love, guess I'll just go pick up a woman.

As far as children - I have yet to see any reliable research conclusively show that being raised in a homosexual household is damaging by reason of homosexuality alone.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is where I see a major fallacy:

How does allowing homosexuals to marry effect a woman's inherent right to motherhood or ability to get married? I mean, gays aren't exactly going to go around and say - damn, can't marry my true love, guess I'll just go pick up a woman.

As far as children - I have yet to see any reliable research conclusively show that being raised in a homosexual household is damaging by reason of homosexuality alone.

Quote the opposite in fact. The only discernable difference between children raised in hetero families and homo families are that the homo-raised children are more open-minded about people's differences. Achievement, drinking, drug use, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, car accidents, crime and arrests, and percentage that identify as homosexual, on all of these measurements there is no statistically significance between the two groups. Rather a lot of this research has been done and much of it funded by religious people who have been horrified to discover that their prejudices are not supported by the evidence.

 

[numinus]

Why is that the ultimate "justification"?

Justification refers to the rational relationship between an action and its intended end or effect. But of course, an immediate effect for a particular action is not always the intended end. Often times, an effect is merely a means to another end etc., etc.

When the calculations of means and effects has come to an end such that it no longer serves as a means to a higher end, then such an end is known as a categorical imperative - which is a statement of a moral good.

Let us look at all the reasons for which we engage in sexual activity:

lust

Lust is merely a means towards a divergent multiplicity of ends, not all of which accrues to a good in and of itself. Lust could be an instrument of rape or violence. Therefore, it couldn't be the basis of a moral good.

love

Love, when directed towards others, is a statement of a moral good. It no longer accrues to a greater good but itself. Therefore, love, or a unitive human relationship, is a categorical imperative.

social bonding

Social bonding is only a means to another end, which is ultimately love.

procreation

Procreation is a necessary means towards the survival of the species, hence an imperative of nature. When the circumstances by which one procreates is guided by rationality, then it is a categorical imperative.

Now what gives any one a higher value or justification then another or any two of them?

Understand that the marital institution is about the right of a woman to motherhood and the basic family relations that ensue from such a right. Now can you think of other means - aside from conjugal love and procreation - that would create a situation conducive to that?

For example: love (which I agree with) and procreation. That rules out all infertile couples,

Conjugal love (and not just any kind of love) and procreation are not just implied in a marriage, they form the necessary conditions by which it exists. Only the natural process of procreation would create another human being, and a defenseless human being at that.

That is why infertility is a ground to void a marriage.

elderly couples

While age may diminish a woman's ability to bear children, it does not diminish her RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD. You must admit, maternity, and everything else that is associated with it, is a predisposition among the female gender, no?

and of course gays.

Gay men have NO right to motherhood. Gay women, by their gender alone, have a right to it.

The biological imperative of the species is not individual procreation alone. Not in social species. Love without procreation can mean stronger social bonds and by extension - greater stability for the group as a whole without the added onus of too many breeding individuals.

That may be true. But it is not a reason to institutionalize such choices for the simple reason that NO motherhood, NOR family relations result from such a union.