Homosexuality

Frank,

Are you sure thats not a statistical tautology?

i.e. If the majority of homes are considered "traditional" the majority of homosexuals will obviously come from them.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Nobody has used the word "wrong". I am discussing "expediency" with respect to maintaining a stable society, with particular reference to homosexuals demands for "parental rights". It may be that for many homosexuals such demands are nothing to do with an actual desire to be a parent, but merely a posture adopted for the purposes of reification of their "normality".

This statement is specious at best. First, society will never be stable, it will always be in a constant state of flux. That is the way of the universe. Second, your opinions are just that, opinions, not fact. Perhaps you may want to consider that there may be many homosexuals who truly do desire to marry and become parents, and this may be the reason the lobbyists are fighting for it. Third, I would guess that most homosexuals do not need a "reification of their normality."

When you become psychic, and can probe the minds of the gay community at large, let me know. Everyone is born of woman, including "homos". I suppose that makes us all "human".

As for "traditional" homes, show me a "traditional" family, and I'll give you a dollar. Smile

0 Replies

On a related note, what differentiates wanting to be a parent from wanting to reify one's normality, for anyone? Seriously now.

0 Replies

Homosexuality is inherently wrong. It is simply something that was not meant to be. Please do not take this the wrong way. I do not have a problem with homosexual people, however as a christian myself, i believe that homosexuality is something that is wrong. Our bodies were simply not created obviously for it to be possible. In one of the earlier posts, someone said that some animals engage in acts of homosexuality. However we are not simply animals. We are sentient beings. We do not mimic other actions of animals so why should mimicking homosexual behaviour be acceptable conduct then?

0 Replies

terence638l wrote:

Homosexuality is inherently wrong. It is simply something that was not meant to be. Please do not take this the wrong way. I do not have a problem with homosexual people, however as a christian myself, i believe that homosexuality is something that is wrong. Our bodies were simply not created obviously for it to be possible. In one of the earlier posts, someone said that some animals engage in acts of homosexuality. However we are not simply animals. We are sentient beings. We do not mimic other actions of animals so why should mimicking homosexual behaviour be acceptable conduct then?

Oh Lord, don't get me started on this argument....should we discuss the issue of 'sentience' first, or the assertion that we do not mimic animals, or, in your words, "homosexual behaviour"?

Maybe we should start with your view that homosexuality is "inherently" wrong. That is what some of us call "social conditioning", and as you say you are a Christian, your feelings are completely understandable. I'm not taking anything you said the "wrong way", just putting things out for the purpose of friendly debate. :wink:

0 Replies

Cavfancier,

I concur these are all our opinions and that society is in flux. However, I also argue from the point of view of "self regulatory structures" which are technically a priori to the opinions which serve them, or which are molded by them. That argument has yet to be addressed

0 Replies

<GROAN>

0 Replies

Cav, ill get the ball rolling.

1. "so why should we mimick homosexual behaviour" I do not think that gay people see a rabbit that is homosexual and decide to try and mimick the animals. The point is that there are certain animals which are born homosexual, and the same goes for humans. No one is mimicking anybody, its not wrong, just different.

2. What does sentient even have to do with it, people are born gay or sometimes they dont feel heterosexuality works for them, how is that wrong?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

I of course concur that conflicts arise, and resolutions may be painful or even arbitrary.
However one assumes rightly or wrongly that the state takes all factors into account before legislating such that the chances of "uninformed consensus" in minimized. Thus your arguments about "obligation" and statusof "conensus"are theoretically avoided.

I have no idea why my arguments about "obligation" and the status of "consensus" are theoretically avoided. I'm not even sure why you'd put "consensus" in quotation marks. You, after all, are the one who came up with the idea of consensuses in the first place. If you're not sure what the nature of a consensus is, then maybe you should reconsider your entire position.

If a social consensus is not obligatory on the members of a society, then certainly a social consensus on homosexual marriage amounts to nothing more than a suggestion. Indeed, it's hardly worth mentioning. On the other hand, if it's obligatory, then there's no sense in saying that the question of obligation is theoretically avoided: far from being avoided, it would be inherent in the very notion of "consensus."

So, you have your choice: either the social consensus that you posit is, at most, precatory, or else it is obligatory. If the former, then any social consensus on homosexual marriage is largely irrelevant and your reliance on it is unwarranted. If the latter, then there is the chance that one obligatory consensus will come into conflict with another. And if that's the case, what happens when one consensus contradicts another?

0 Replies

Terrence, our bodies weren't created for any particular purpose other than living. Whatever we do with them is just as viable as whatever we choose not to do with them.

Fresco, out of curiosity, why do YOU think these structures that you believe in are there? I think you mean Bush's tax cuts by this, and I wonder how you can think that Bush's tax cuts are anything more esoteric than the decision of one man to favor a particular group of people.

0 Replies

Rufio (et al),

IMO

It doesn't matter why Bush acts as he does. The structure we call "the nation" has as one of its features "the presidency" which in theory at least represents an aspect of "the consensus". You (Americans) have the power to remove or overturn legislation by due process in the long run, by the operation of your evolved consensus. It is my contention that it evolves conservatively, and that conservatism is based on the same "mechanisms" which preserve biological structure and function.

Thus given that the norm for child rearing statistically has been heterosexual parenting then this will tend to continue in as much that "the consensus" will decide that way in matters of rights issues, especially when the perceived rights of a minor to have a "normal upbringing" are set against the perceived rights of a non-procreating minority to claim "parenthood".

Whether or not parts of the consensus refer to "divine authority" in support of their position is a secondary issue. However there is clearly some heavy interplay between the issues of "birth control", "womens lib", "gay rights" , "biological engineering" and "religious fundamentalism" which are seriously testing the integrity the current structure. Each of our opinions has been forged within differing exposure to ths ferment and it is therefore unlikely that the real forces which hold societies together, or otherwise can be appreciated from any individual point of view.

0 Replies

fresco: Sorry, that's no answer. Stripped to its essentials, you're merely saying that the way people feel about homosexual marriage is the way they feel about homosexual marriage. That doesn't even explain why they feel the way they do, let alone addressing the main question of whether or not they should feel that way.

0 Replies

Fresco, a few things.

First of all, understand that the American public has no say in what goes on in Washington. It's essentially all controlled by special interests and PACs, not the people. Conservatives like to say that the media is "liberal" but that's because a lot of the media is more grassroots than a lot of the politcal in-crowd, who tend to lean conservative.

Second of all, "normal" upbringing has nothing to do with "normal" nuclear families. The rituals and norms of the proper upbringing of a child are not gender-specific. I know someone who was brought up by two men who probably had a more nomal upbringing than me. There are many more things that contribute to abnormal upbringing, like deaths in the family, dysfunctional families, broken homes, poverty, and drug use. I think we should tackle these problems first.

Third of all, what makes you think that what was normal 50 years ago should be what we stolidly stick to today? 150 years ago, it was normal to have black people as slaves. Should we resurrect that norm as well?

0 Replies

Joe,

If you want to indulge in the simplistic anthropomorphisms of "should" and "why", and apply them to the structural dynamics of groups, good luck to you !

Rufio,

So your first point is that you are not living in a democracy, Your second ignores the word "perceived" in "perceived normality", and the third ignores the issue of consensus evolving.

If I therefore take only point one as relevent: that "consensus" has been hijacked by vested interest groups then I contend they will be even more conservative than otherwise. (Entrenched structures tend to remain stationary) Perhaps thats the issue Americans should address rather than what appears the much lessor issues of "gay marriage" etc,

0 Replies

Perhaps. But it's not going to happen. On the other hand, if enough people are at odds with what the government is doing, something has a possibility of changing.

"Perceived normality" varies among people, and you can't ascribe it to a nation or a "society". I think that is the part that you are ignoring.

If by consensus evolving, you mean the changing of opinions and culture over time, than I think you are also the one ignoring that. Times have changed, and you standard of normality no longer applies.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

If you want to indulge in the simplistic anthropomorphisms of "should" and "why", and apply them to the structural dynamics of groups, good luck to you !

If what you're attempting to do here, fresco, is provide a factual account of a social phenomenon, then I'm not sure why you would even bother. After all, telling us that the majority of people do not support homosexual marriage is not telling anything that we didn't already know. And your explanation regarding the socio-biological origins of that majority opinion is, in the first place, unpersuasive, and, in the second place, simply irrelevant. Even if the majority bias against homosexual marriage is socio-biological in nature, so what? Who cares? Why does that matter?

Snoe's initial query asked: "I've seen people try all too much to prove homosexuality was "wrong" or "immoral" even without relgion. What're your two bits?" Clearly, therefore, this thread is intended to cover issues of morality. On the other hand, fresco, if you regard morality as a "simple anthropomorphism," then I am at a loss to understand why you are participating in this discussion.

0 Replies

Joe,

Read what I wrote. I did not mention "morality".

The reason for participation (as I recall) was to express a non-religious "two cents worth", and I have done this by refering to a "biological substrate" as a possible model. Such a model might incorporate "self regulatory mechanisms" which transcend the "freedom" or presumed independence of individual action and thought.

Those who either do not understand such a model, or find it unsatisfactory are entitled to reject it.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know