Botsnst, I think you and Kerry over nuance the question. If we remove sailors who have been on the boat too long, and academic elitists trying to go Oscar Wilde, and just look at the more general question, I believe we end up seeing something that has a genetic cause at work.
It's obvious to me that nature and genetics makes these people who they are.
Isn't the key to refuting a claim the providing of a counter-example? You're saying basically, 'ignoring your on-point counter-examples, it's genetics'. I know you are more savvy than this...
__________________
'85 300TD Pastel Beige
361,500 miles and counting
I'm saying he is pulling a guy with acne out of a crowd of a million people and then assuming all of them have pimples really bad. I'm trying to use facts that are well known commonalities among the specific populations. I think I win the logic test.
I read it previously. The study is some multivariate correlative study. It may or may not be indicative of causality. The thing about multiple correlative studies is that as you throw in more factors your correlation will increase. This has a bunch of factors and doesn't atempt to partial-out the contributions of the various factors. I wouldn't invest in the stock market if these guys were selling shares.
But, it may be correct. In fact, I'll bet it is. Know why? Because it nearly exactly conforms to my previous description, above. It points-out that it is probably polygenic with environmental and devlopmental components. Anything that agrees with me that closely has just got to be right.
I don't disagree that most people experience their sexuality as a given, gay or straight. But some people experience it is a choice.
My main point is that it doesn't matter either way in deciding the morality of sexuality. The right wing wants to say it is chosen so they can say it is a sin. Some gays want to say it is not chosen so it must be ok.
I'd like to see more reasoning about what could possibly make a consensual act between adults wrong. Most of the right wing arguments claim that it violates the 'natural purpose of sex', which is reproduction. I find this argument unconvincing since there is no necessary connection between orgasm and conception, and the argument equally implies that masturbation is wrong.
I don't see it as accidental that most opponents of homosexuality also prescribe rigid gender roles. I think societies that allow for wide ranges of sexual expression and wide gender role possibilities are likely to be societies in which more people are satisfied.
I don't disagree that most people experience their sexuality as a given, gay or straight. But some people experience it is a choice.
My main point is that it doesn't matter either way in deciding the morality of sexuality. The right wing wants to say it is chosen so they can say it is a sin. Some gays want to say it is not chosen so it must be ok.
I'd like to see more reasoning about what could possibly make a consensual act between adults wrong. Most of the right wing arguments claim that it violates the 'natural purpose of sex', which is reproduction. I find this argument unconvincing since there is no necessary connection between orgasm and conception, and the argument equally implies that masturbation is wrong.
I don't see it as accidental that most opponents of homosexuality also prescribe rigid gender roles. I think societies that allow for wide ranges of sexual expression and wide gender role possibilities are likely to be societies in which more people are satisfied.
I kind of agree with what you've written. But the whole dang-fool left-wing, right-wing thing trivializes it, don't you think? Or are all homosexuals left-wing and all heteros right-wing?
I would characterize the anti-homo-religo-political folks a bit differently. In fact, completely differently. For them, the Truth comes from the Bible. They don't prescribe gender roles to suppress homosexuality, their prescription is revealed by God just as certainly to them as the Creation. Its not a mater of conjecture, its a mater of revelation. It is thus not a use of prescription to engineer something, but a revelation of the structure of society according to the Divine Plan. This is what they have in common with the Talibanistas. Where they differ is that the Talibanistas and alquedistas believe themselves fully justified in their world view to murder innocent people to achieve their revealed truth. So far, I haven't seen this behavior in Christianity in nearly 500 years. Okay, there have been a few sporadic nutcases, but the nutty Christians are almost alsways small cults led by a single fruitcake.
Botnst - 10/20/2004 6:21 PM
I kind of agree with what you've written. But the whole dang-fool left-wing, right-wing thing trivializes it, don't you think? Or are all homosexuals left-wing and all heteros right-wing?
I would characterize the anti-homo-religo-political folks a bit differently. In fact, completely differently. For them, the Truth comes from the Bible. They don't prescribe gender roles to suppress homosexuality, their prescription is revealed by God just as certainly to them as the Creation. Its not a mater of conjecture, its a mater of revelation. It is thus not a use of prescription to engineer something, but a revelation of the structure of society according to the Divine Plan. This is what they have in common with the Talibanistas. Where they differ is that the Talibanistas and alquedistas believe themselves fully justified in their world view to murder innocent people to achieve their revealed truth. So far, I haven't seen this behavior in Christianity in nearly 500 years. Okay, there have been a few sporadic nutcases, but the nutty Christians are almost alsways small cults led by a single fruitcake.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that there is a natural political correlation to sexuality.
The reason I wrote it that way however, does have something to do with a fundamental disagreement I have with your last paragraph. You imply that the reason people hold certain moral opinions is because they believe in a certain text. I think in many ways, you have the causal relationship reversed. The reason people hold to the text is because they already have a certain attitude, tendency, cultural or social class position that uses an ancient text as justification for its ideas. I think the evidence for this is clear. Why would people take the rules about sexuality in the Bible and Koran as applicable in today's society but violate, or reject other rules (don't eat pork, execute rebellious teenagers, keep slaves etc) just a few sentences away. The only credible explanation I can find for these behaviors is that the book is not the 'real' source of their ideas, just a convenient authority.
Same with abortion. Most religious rightists in the US who oppose homosexuality also oppose abortion. But the Bible says not one word about abortion. Can this be explained in another way than the one I suggest.
Actually, I thought we had done a pretty good job of keeping politics out of it. My own feeling is that a lot of people would change their mind about whether one is justified in discriminating against gays if they came to realize that these people have no choice in the matter, whatever their political persausion. Myself, I got the usual hate-all-gays upbringing from my dad, and spent years of my life viewing them unnatural perverts due to his brainwashing. Eventually I got stuck into a situation where I had to work with an obviously gay guy every day, and I finally came to a conclusion that the guy would be no other person than the one he was. Around the same time, an uncle of mine's marriage broke up, and the family secret of him being gay fell out, and I became aware of how much this poor man had suffered his entire life from trying to please my grandfather by trying to be be straight, and I came to realize the incredibly unjust tragedy our society makes of these unfortunate people's lives. I really don't think of it as a political question - I think it is a question of simple human justice.
Botnst - 10/20/2004 6:21 PM
I kind of agree with what you've written. But the whole dang-fool left-wing, right-wing thing trivializes it, don't you think? Or are all homosexuals left-wing and all heteros right-wing?
I would characterize the anti-homo-religo-political folks a bit differently. In fact, completely differently. For them, the Truth comes from the Bible. They don't prescribe gender roles to suppress homosexuality, their prescription is revealed by God just as certainly to them as the Creation. Its not a mater of conjecture, its a mater of revelation. It is thus not a use of prescription to engineer something, but a revelation of the structure of society according to the Divine Plan. This is what they have in common with the Talibanistas. Where they differ is that the Talibanistas and alquedistas believe themselves fully justified in their world view to murder innocent people to achieve their revealed truth. So far, I haven't seen this behavior in Christianity in nearly 500 years. Okay, there have been a few sporadic nutcases, but the nutty Christians are almost alsways small cults led by a single fruitcake.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that there is a natural political correlation to sexuality.
The reason I wrote it that way however, does have something to do with a fundamental disagreement I have with your last paragraph. You imply that the reason people hold certain moral opinions is because they believe in a certain text. I think in many ways, you have the causal relationship reversed. The reason people hold to the text is because they already have a certain attitude, tendency, cultural or social class position that uses an ancient text as justification for its ideas. I think the evidence for this is clear. Why would people take the rules about sexuality in the Bible and Koran as applicable in today's society but violate, or reject other rules (don't eat pork, execute rebellious teenagers, keep slaves etc) just a few sentences away. The only credible explanation I can find for these behaviors is that the book is not the 'real' source of their ideas, just a convenient authority.
Same with abortion. Most religious rightists in the US who oppose homosexuality also oppose abortion. But the Bible says not one word about abortion. Can this be explained in another way than the one I suggest.
Aw heck. That makes way too much sense. I think you've got it exactly right.
Concerning abortion, I think that the argument goes like this.
Human life is God's gift, freely given.
Life begins at conception. Before conception, the germinal tissues are living tissue but not capable of actual separate existence until conception. Therefore, germinal tissue is not sacred while the zygote is.
Accidental destruction of human life is part of the cycle of life. Therefore, spontaneous abortion is no different from being struck by lightning.
Intentional destruction of life is wrong. Therefore intentional destruction of life, from zygote to adulthood, is wrong.
I think that's a consistent line of argument. As I understand it, Catholic teaching opposes execution. I agree with others that capital punishment is not in conformity with abortion. This separates some protestants (but not all) from Roman Catholics.
I am curious about something that I am not certain about. I believe that the early Judaic custom was that a newborn wasn't a person until some time after delivery. Is that right? If it is, then it would seem to me that the custom would allow for abortion. Also, it would seem that the Talmudic line of argument supporting that ancient custom, if extant, would be an interesting argument to bring to anti-abortionists.
Linear Mode
