Homosexuality- Does choice matter?

[Reidy]

Does that mean the marriage isn't a sin if the other party knows the score, as in the cases of, apparently, Rock Hudson or Peter Allen?

[Selene]

Yeah, like too many Barbra Streisand records in utero.

Geez, come on, everyone knows that it is Judy Garland albums in utero...

Also, there are rumors that watching Johnny Mathis' lips while he sang "Misty" or "Chances Are" was also a contributor...

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Does that mean the marriage isn't a sin if the other party knows the score, as in the cases of, apparently, Rock Hudson or Peter Allen?

Well, it depends. For Rock Hudson, anyway, it was a coverup. The Hollywood powers-that-be wanted to preserve his star status as an alpha, heterosexual male. That's partly because of a lying culture wanting lies. So lies is what was got. Later, it stopped mattering so much. There are a lot more extant lies today of much greater import, like fighting for democracy and freedom around the world. When the culture honors honesty, honesty will benefit the culture. Hudson was a piffle. Vietnam was a slaughterhouse. Cambodia turned out even worse. LBJ lied this country into war. "Sin" is only evil lite. It's used by preachers to control the congregation, especially when passing the plate--the plate of partial extirpation (thus saving some guilt for next week).

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

An excellent question.

I believe that much of this is rooted in the fact that the major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam apparently have moral strictures on the act itself and have declared it a sin.

This reduced the "behavior" as a "moral" choice which made it discretionary.

Therefore, the behavior is choosing to live and act sinfully.

A...

best I can do on your question right now

Sin or no sin, being sexually attracted to a member of one's own gender is caused at a very internal, very basic biological level. It is not something that one decides by pondering, reasoning and planning. Feelings happen. Of course once we have our desires we can rationally plan how to fulfill them.

For purely genetic reasons, we have evolved in such a way that men for the most part naturally lust after women (sexually speaking) and women for the most part mostly lust after men. Some men and women sexually lust after persons of either gender.

It is well that this is the case. We have evolved in such a way that reproducing requires the common effort of a male and a female.

If a means is ever found to split a female egg by mitosis and combine halves of different eggs to produce a viable fertilized egg, then males would not be necessary to reproduce the species. Hmmm.....

Ba'al Chatzaf

[DallasCowboys]

David, you're really testing me here! Let me be clear that I am not Catholic. What I know of Catholicism I have learned alongside my 10-year-old son because he attends a Catholic school and religion is part of the curriculum. In other words, I am no expert by any means. My knowledge is what you'd expect of a non-Catholic 4th grader who studies to the weekly tests. LOL! Myself, I was raised in tiny Baptist churches where one simply did not talk about homosexuality at all.

Catholicism defines mortal sins as those that are of a serious nature, and are committed knowingly and with the sinner's full consent. The serious nature part is covered by the Ten Commandments, and the Church has categorized homosexuality as an offense against the 6th, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." There is specific scripture they use to support that conclusion. If you are interested, I will try to find it, but a google search would probably turn it up for you.

I'm not sure this line of inquiry, though, is ever going to get you the answer you seek as it is all dependent on scripture and, in the case of the Catholic Church, on some higher authority's interpretation of that scripture. You could conceivably continue to question, "Why?" to every answer a priest could make until he finally falls back to... "because faith, my child."

Edited to add: Adam makes an important point that draws attention to something I clearly mis-stated. I said that according to Catholicism, being gay is a mortal sin which is not accurate. Rather, acting on being gay is a mortal sin. Which is maybe the crux of the thing?

I am not sure in which way you mean "testing", if you mean as in, testing your knowledge then I have no comment. If you mean "testing" as in getting on your nerves then I apologize, that wasn't my intention. If I wasn't clear I apologize, I never said that you were Catholic, I asked why "they" as in Catholics view homosexuality as a higher sin as compared to other sins. With regard to getting a direct answer, you answered my question which ultimately is Catholics don't need a justification, that it can all come back to faith being the answer.

Thank you as always ,

David C.

[Selene]

David...

Out of curiosity, why did you chose that specific Rand quote?

“Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?”
― Ayn Rand

Thanks.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

sigh...
 
Last week Ben Carson sunk his presidential possibilities over this very issue:

 

 
I actually saw that when it happened.
 
I love Ben Carson, I really do and I was hoping to support him, but come on...
 
Even Glenn Beck said this was one of the dumbest things any presidential hopeful has ever said.
 
I don't think Carson can recover from this in today's media climate. And if he digs in on it, which he probably will, frankly, I'm not sure I want him to.
 
Michael

[dldelancey]

No apologies necessary, David. I meant, in all jest, that you were testing my knowledge. Also, that I am nowhere near an authority on the teachings of the Catholic church.

[DallasCowboys]

David...

Out of curiosity, why did you chose that specific Rand quote?

“Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?”

― Ayn Rand

Thanks.

A...

Thanks for the question. To me I always related the quote to love and I am the hopeless romantic type. One of my goals in life is to fall in love with someone who I admire, for someone who I don't feel above. I mean that in as non arrogant a way as possible. Just to clarify I don't mean I want to be below the person I fall in love with, I mean I just want someone who I admire. For example, I would want to fall in love with someone who is really well read, or can sing like Aretha Franklin (don't know why I chose her). For all 20 years of my short life any women I have ever gotten somewhat close with, hasn't been someone I would strive to be or admire and I don't mean that in a rude way. Hopefully that makes sense, which I don't think it does.

David C.

[DallasCowboys]

No apologies necessary, David. I meant, in all jest, that you were testing my knowledge. Also, that I am nowhere near an authority on the teachings of the Catholic church.

Ok good, I was nervous there because I really enjoy your answers; and trust me you know where more about Catholic teachings then I do.

David C.

[DallasCowboys]

sigh...

Last week Ben Carson sunk his presidential possibilities over this very issue:

I actually saw that when it happened.

I love Ben Carson, I really do and I was hoping to support him, but come on...

Even Glenn Beck said this was one of the dumbest things any presidential hopeful has ever said.

I don't think Carson can recover from this in today's media climate. And if he digs in on it, which he probably will, frankly, I'm not sure I want him to.

Michael

I can't watch this clip without cringing. I really understand what he was trying to say but it came off so badly and using prison as his example was in such poor taste. I think he just apologized for the comment but I agree it is way too late; if he ran for president, the media would never let this go. Personally, I don't understand why republican candidates dive into social issues like this, they should stay on economic issues.

[Selene]

Thanks for the question. To me I always related the quote to love and I am the hopeless romantic type. One of my goals in life is to fall in love with someone who I admire, for someone who I don't feel above. I mean that in as non arrogant a way as possible. Just to clarify I don't mean I want to be below the person I fall in love with, I mean I just want someone who I admire. For example, I would want to fall in love with someone who is really well read, or can sing like Aretha Franklin (don't know why I chose her). For all 20 years of my short life any women I have ever gotten somewhat close with, hasn't been someone I would strive to be or admire and I don't mean that in a rude way. Hopefully that makes sense, which I don't think it does.

David C.

It makes sense.

You posted:

For all 20 years of my short life any women I have ever gotten somewhat close with, hasn't been someone I would strive to be or admire and I don't mean that in a rude way.

That statement intrigued me.

I assume you were referring to young woman somewhere near your age.

If that is what you meant, what about them was not admirable?

Also, are there any women over thirty that you have met that were admirable?

A...

[DallasCowboys]

Thanks for the question. To me I always related the quote to love and I am the hopeless romantic type. One of my goals in life is to fall in love with someone who I admire, for someone who I don't feel above. I mean that in as non arrogant a way as possible. Just to clarify I don't mean I want to be below the person I fall in love with, I mean I just want someone who I admire. For example, I would want to fall in love with someone who is really well read, or can sing like Aretha Franklin (don't know why I chose her). For all 20 years of my short life any women I have ever gotten somewhat close with, hasn't been someone I would strive to be or admire and I don't mean that in a rude way. Hopefully that makes sense, which I don't think it does.

David C.

It makes sense.

You posted:

For all 20 years of my short life any women I have ever gotten somewhat close with, hasn't been someone I would strive to be or admire and I don't mean that in a rude way.

That statement intrigued me.

I assume you were referring to young woman somewhere near your age.

If that is what you meant, what about them was not admirable?

Also, are there any women over thirty that you have met that were admirable?

A...

With regard to the first part of your question, no, any women I have met around my age hasn't been admirable. Yes, I have met some beautiful women in the physical sense , so I guess they are admirable in that way but they were never admirable in intellectual ways. I have even stopped trying to pursue pretty women because I just couldn't find something about them I admired or wanted beyond physical appearance. Not admirable, in the sense that they never had some trait I appreciated the skill of, they never even had unrivaled passion for something. With regard to your second question and women over 30, none that I can think of (this is with regard to physically met in person). On a side note, I also like the quote because I would love to fall for someone in person who instead of me having to drop my level of conversation we were met on equal plains or they challenged my intellect. Again, hope this makes sense.

David C.

[Selene]

For all 20 years of my short life any women I have ever gotten somewhat close with, hasn't been someone I would strive to be or admire and I don't mean that in a rude way.

That statement intrigued me.

I assume you were referring to young woman somewhere near your age.

If that is what you meant, what about them was not admirable?

Also, are there any women over thirty that you have met that were admirable?

A...

With regard to the first part of your question, no, any women I have met around my age hasn't been admirable. Yes, I have met some beautiful women in the physical sense , so I guess they are admirable in that way but they were never admirable in intellectual ways. I have even stopped trying to pursue pretty women because I just couldn't find something about them I admired or wanted beyond physical appearance. Not admirable, in the sense that they never had some trait I appreciated the skill of, they never even had unrivaled passion for something. With regard to your second question and women over 30, none that I can think of (this is with regard to physically met in person). On a side note, I also like the quote because I would love to fall for someone in person who instead of me having to drop my level of conversation we were met on equal plains or they challenged my intellect. Again, hope this makes sense.

David C.

Again it makes sense.

Make the effort to meet women five (5) or more years older than you are just for some balance.

I know the community you live in and it can be very "surfacey." Looks and appearances have social value.

Of course, to an independent mind, not so much.

Stay the course, just look up in terms of slightly older women.

A...

[dldelancey]

Adam, are you encouraging our young David to go find himself a cougar?

I'M KIDDING!!!!!!!

[Brant Gaede]

For all 20 years of my short life any women I have ever gotten somewhat close with, hasn't been someone I would strive to be or admire and I don't mean that in a rude way.

That statement intrigued me.

I assume you were referring to young woman somewhere near your age.

If that is what you meant, what about them was not admirable?

Also, are there any women over thirty that you have met that were admirable?

A...

With regard to the first part of your question, no, any women I have met around my age hasn't been admirable. Yes, I have met some beautiful women in the physical sense , so I guess they are admirable in that way but they were never admirable in intellectual ways. I have even stopped trying to pursue pretty women because I just couldn't find something about them I admired or wanted beyond physical appearance. Not admirable, in the sense that they never had some trait I appreciated the skill of, they never even had unrivaled passion for something. With regard to your second question and women over 30, none that I can think of (this is with regard to physically met in person). On a side note, I also like the quote because I would love to fall for someone in person who instead of me having to drop my level of conversation we were met on equal plains or they challenged my intellect. Again, hope this makes sense.

David C.

Again it makes sense.

Make the effort to meet women five (5) or more years older than you are just for some balance.

I know the community you live in and it can be very "surfacey." Looks and appearances have social value.

Of course, to an independent mind, not so much.

Stay the course, just look up in terms of slightly older women.

A...

Less competition for us, eh, Adam?

--Brant

you're good--you're very good

[Selene]

Adam, are you encouraging our young David to go find himself a cougar?

I'M KIDDING!!!!!!!

Lol...

He will have the scratches and experience to prove it too!

>>>>>too hot to handle

[moralist]

David writes:

One of my goals in life is to fall in love with someone who I admire, for someone who I don't feel above.

If you first become the kind of man that a woman admires and doesn't feel above...

...your goal will become reality because it is in harmony with it.

Greg

[DallasCowboys]

Adam, are you encouraging our young David to go find himself a cougar?

I'M KIDDING!!!!!!!

Lol...

He will have the scratches and experience to prove it too!

>>>>>too hot to handle

- growl, hahaha.

[DallasCowboys]

David writes:

One of my goals in life is to fall in love with someone who I admire, for someone who I don't feel above.

If you first become the kind of man that a woman admires and doesn't feel above...

...your goal will become reality because it is in harmony with it.

Greg

Thanks Greg, I like this way of thinking about it.

[Selene]

This is the Amicus Brief filed by Republican conservatives and libertarians in the "marriage" case on it's way to the Supreme Court:

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
1

Amici are social and political conservatives, moderates, and libertarians from diverse backgrounds. Many have served as elected or appointed officeholders in various Presidential administrations, as governors, mayors, and other officeholders in States and cities across the Nation, as members of Congress, as ambassadors, as military officers, as officials in political campaigns and political parties, and as advocates and activists for various political and social causes. Amici sup-port traditional conservative values, including the be-lief in the importance of stable families, as well as the commitment to limited government and the protection of individual freedom. Because they believe that those conservative values are consistent with—indeed, are advanced by—affording civil marriage rights to same-sex couples, amici submit that the decision below should be reversed. A full list of amici is provided as an Appendix to this brief.

When you take a good look at the list of amici, it is a who's who of the Republican establishment.

Very interesting brief by the way...

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
In 2013, this Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), concluding that the law—which refused to honor for federal purposes the marriages of same-sex couples validly married under State law—violated the core promises of the United States 2 Constitution.
See United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). The Court in Windsor recognized that the “[r]esponsibilities” attendant to marriage, “as well as [the] rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person.” Id. at 2694. The Court therefore held that a law treating same-sex couples differently from others by withholding those rights and responsibilities “de-means” same-sex couples, “impose inequality” and “a stigma” on them, denies them “equal dignity,” treats them as “unworthy,” and “humiliates” and makes vul-nerable their children. Id. at 2693-2694. Those children, the Court explained, should not be “instruct[ed]” that the marriage of the parents who provide for and raise them “is less worthy”—and neither they nor their par-ents should suffer from the law’s placement of “same-sex couples in an unstable position” of having “second-tier” relationships. Id.
at 2694, 2696. Thus, this Court rejected a law that would “restrict the freedom” of those couples and infringe “the liberty of the person” by “impos[ing] a disability on the class”—by “dispar-ag[ing]” and “injur[ing]” a set of individuals entitled to “personhood and dignity.” id. at 2693, 2695-2696. Although amici hold a broad spectrum of socially and politically conservative, moderate, and libertarian views, amici share the view that laws that bar same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage, with all its attendant profoundly important rights and respon-sibilities, are inconsistent with the United States Con-stitution’s dual promises of equal protection and due process. The marriage bans challenged here, like the act at issue in Windsor
, target gay and lesbian couples and their families for injurious governmental treat-ment. The bans are accordingly inconsistent with amici’s understanding of the properly limited role of gov-ernment. Rather, amici embrace Barry Goldwater’s expression of that understanding, namely that “[w]e do not seek to lead anyone’s life for him—we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.”

The summary of argument continues. I find reading a well written brief truly enjoyable. It is a history lesson, a lesson in the philosophy of law and a lesson in rhetoric/argumentation.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/257815641/Kenneth-B-Mehlman-Et-Al

[D-Ostruh]

Hey all,

I was going through yahoo news (I think it was yahoo) the other day and there was some article about how Homosexuality is a choice. Now this idea of homosexuality being a choice never made sense to me but not in the way you think. I never understood why it being a choice matters. Who cares if you choose to be gay or if you are biologically that way. Why do people even debate this issue of choice with homosexuality? Nobody debates choice with regard to hetrosexual people or with regard to any other issue of preference. Am I missing something?

Thanks,

David C.

Arguing that homosexuality is a choice is typically an argument made by someone who's arguing against homosexuality, as if it being a choice would settle the issue of if someone should be homosexual or not and that they should not, so as if it being a choice deprives someone of any excuse for their homosexuality. Arguing that it is not a choice is an argument made typically the other way, as if to prove it is not a choice settles the issue of its acceptability. It's most common for people to argue for homosexuality's acceptability on the basis of it not being a choice. Why it is this way on both sides is because of the presumption of heterosexuality and the presumption of an anti-homosexual morality. The choice-debate is shallow.

However, that does not mean choice or biology doesn't matter. Nobody debates choice over heterosexuality, because heterosexuality is the world-standard of sexual-morality. It could be questioned, but most people believe that to question heterosexuality would be absurd. Why would you question if heterosexuality is a choice, unless the moral presumption about heterosexuality was that it was wrong? People ask that about homosexuality because of the presumption of homosexuality being immoral, so if it is not a choice, you're also not guilty.

What you are missing is what the whole world is missing and that is the relevance of sexual-object choice to morality and what that connection is. You are missing it, as is the world at large because of the presumption of heterosexuality's objective stature as principally unquestionable. The reason why choice is whitewashed out of real consideration is because of what it would mean to associate sexuality with choice on principle. It would mean that heterosexuality is on principle itself open to debate and that it is questionable. How can choice be regarded seriously in sexual matters if people are not willing to question heterosexuality? Do you see what I mean? The whole issue of choice in sexuality is principally closed when heterosexuality itself is not regarded as open to question as a sexual value-system. You can't regard sexuality as controlled by choice if you won't consider questioning heterosexuality. How can choice be given a fair treatment in sexuality if a sexual value is held as if it's beyond question? How heterosexuality has always been treated, as being regarded as naturally default and admitting of no cause to question, is why free-will in sexuality is not treated in a principle manner. You can't. You can't just accept heterosexuality as a given and then give serious consideration to choice in sexuality at the same time.

If heterosexuality is a sexuality that is not regarded as open to being possibly wrong itself, then choice cannot be regarded either as a principle factor in basic sexuality. See? Questioning heterosexuality is presuming a choice exists in respect to sexuality itself, because with heterosexuality is where sexuality is accepted without question.

Without admitting the choices that exist do exist, which the unquestionableness of heterosexuality's naturalness and moral-goodness precludes the admission of, then also the meaning of choices can't be examined or admitted either. Accepting heterosexuality without question is what is dismissing choice from sexuality, so also the meaning of choices. Without choice, there is no morality and accepting a sexual-standard without question is accepting it as if it's not a choice.

It is only because of accepting heterosexuality without question that choice itself is preempted as a factor to basic sexuality, because accepting it without question preempts choice, as if judgment, understanding and decision are not relevant in the basic character of one's sexuality.

Only if the sexuality that is taken for granted is treated as subject to open-examination and question, can it be seen what choices there are and what they mean. Accepting sexuality at all for its direction as just a given, closes discussion and the issue of choices.

They ask if homosexuality is a choice because they do not ask if heterosexuality is. What I mean is that if heterosexuality is accepted without question as right and homosexuality is a choice, then homosexuality must be wrong. Why? Because it is the rejection of what is taken on faith as right. If you are not going to question heterosexuality, then if homosexuality is a choice it must be the choice of rejecting what is unquestionably right. This is why the idea of homosexuality being a choice is also the idea of homosexuality as being wrong.

I think it matters if you choose to "be gay" or if you're biologically that way, because, well, it matters what you believe. If you believe in the biological determinism of values, this belief is a serious philosophical principle to accept and look at life according to; and if you don't think choice really matters here, what does that mean? That you have no standards? There are a lot of problems with the idea that sexual-object choice doesn't matter, like for instance that if it does not matter which sex you choose, then how can you choose? Flip a coin? If you "prefer" one sex or the other, then what is the basis of the preference? If it's not a reason, then it's back to biology and determinism again. There has to be a basis to a preference, a "why?" for it and if you say it doesn't matter why, how do you know it doesn't matter if you don't know why? The idea of "preference" actually presumes a biologically-determined cause, because it does not answer the question of why the preference and leaves the inference as "biological". The "preference-biology" views are related.

Of course, it does not matter to your right to a choice. You have the right to choose whatever you choose, as long as you are only choosing it for you. However, it matters to your own self-interest if your choice is right or not. You may say it doesn't matter as long as you're happy, but then that is not a very conscious existence, which again, is your right, but if however, you are interested in the best possible life, then you would want to know and not settle for "As long as I'm happy, so what?" That's your choice though. What is right and what you have the right to aren't the same. You may not care why your sexuality is the way it is, why you are the way you are, and you don't owe it to anyone to care either, but that doesn't mean it's a good decision. Rational men want to understand themselves and know why they feel what they feel and want what they want. You don't have to be interested, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable not to be. It is not a self-interested point of view to think that it doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter to your rights to it, because you have the right regardless of the "why", but if you are a person who upholds the principle of self-interest, then you are interested in the cause. Not caring about it is the anti-self morality. I mean really, it's not being interested in yourself, in your sexuality make-up, which means not being interested in yourself in one of the most personal ways.

So, I think it matters why, but not because you have to justify it to anyone to have the right to your choice, but because it matters to yourself why.

- Drew O.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Drew wrote:

"Rational men want to understand themselves and know why they feel what they feel and want what they want."

Nope. Rationality has little to do with feelings or wishes. Understanding yourself will not help you drive a car, learn algebra, or write a coherent sentence about your sexual urges. The world did not start with your emotional life.

[anthony]

Knowing "why", of an emotion or a feeling, is often down-played and even rejected against 'rationality'. Emotions are highly important both as an instant, automatic assessment and (specific emotions) their own reward. Just to get the causation and priority firmly fixed.

"An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.

Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand
Playboy, March 1964

¶

An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . .

In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?”

“Philosophical Detection,”

[anthony]

A very good mini-essay, Drew: you write "... the choice debate is shallow". Agreed, the "lifestyle choice" argument is limited at best, patronizing at worst -- which does not negate the right to choice and a series of life-choices. The moral choice is to choose what one knows one IS, forgoing inner conflict and 'mind-body split'.