Homosexuality- Does choice matter?

[Brant Gaede]

When am I going to get my magic punishment? It hasn't happened yet.

J

According to Greg you're living it but oblivious to it. You're subjectively valuing yourself in contradiction to objective reality and reality will, sooner or later, getcha, getcha, getcha.

--Brant

let me know when you hear the footsteps so I can set up the pay per view

[Jonathan]

When am I going to get my magic punishment? It hasn't happened yet.

J

According to Greg you're living it but oblivious to it. You're subjectively valuing yourself in contradiction to objective reality and reality will, sooner or later, getcha, getcha, getcha.

--Brant

let me know when you hear the footsteps so I can set up the pay per view

Okay. I'll let you know if Apey's magic bogeyman ever shows up.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I took your comment that Jesus didn't mind slavery to mean you thought He should have cared about slavery. If that is not what you meant, would you like to rephrase what you said to better fit what you actually meant?

Greg,

I was referring to your own words: "immoral precedent," in other words, the morality of slavery.

Jesus didn't seem to mind the "immoral precedent" since he never commented about it.

But no problem.

I don't have time for this stuff right now.

Playing these word games and working around rationalizations are too much of a distraction from my writing right now.

(This stuff reminds me of those who rationalize Rand's shortcomings. It's a a hazard of the fixed mindset where growth is no longer possible. So all that's left is arguing over word games and minutia to prove/disprove that Rand is always right, good, perfect, whatever. And that doesn't serve me because I'm still growing...)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

According to Greg you're living it but oblivious to it. You're subjectively valuing yourself in contradiction to objective reality and reality will, sooner or later, getcha, getcha, getcha.

Brant,

There is actually a school of religious thought that believes the Kingdom of God is already here on earth and the truly religious people live within it while everybody else lives without. To them, this is the meaning when Jesus says, "Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear," or, when referring to John the Baptist, says no one born of woman has been greater than he, yet the least person within this new Kingdom of God is greater than he.

Or the meaning of the explanation Greg mentioned earlier where Jesus said he spoke in parables to convey meanings only to insiders, whereas outsiders would hear the stories, but not understand them. These insiders would be those who are already within the Kingdom of God.

For people who believe like this, the "good news" you hear Christians say all the time refers to this new Kingdom of God.

Some of them mix metaphysics with this separate Kingdom and believe they are immune to the same reality everybody else is subject to. Greg seems to step into and out of this view at different times. (Read his posts from this lens and they start to make sense. The only dissonance with this spirit is his vanity in constant self-congratulation.)

Here is a note on the metaphysics. In the book on parables I have been studying (The Power of Parable by Crossan), I understood the following. (My understanding is a bit broader than Crossan's since he plugs a social agenda.)

The arrival of the divine (God) in the previous world was always imminent, meaning from any point in time, it could happen any minute in the future, it always came (and would come) in the form of an intervention, and this intervention was violent (or healing violence). Read the Old Testament. That's the way it always happened. (At least, that is the way up to the point I have read so far, meaning the end of Kings 2.)

In the new Kingdom of God, the divine is already here within the heart of any person who believes, it is collaborative (which is why so many missionaries, for example), and it is nonviolent. In other words, the New Testament.

That's how it makes sense that John the Baptist was the greatest in the old world and lesser than the least in the new Kingdom. He never made it to the new one, at least not in life.

Also, in this view, Revelation has to be interpreted strictly in metaphorical terms, otherwise, it doesn't fit.

I don't know if this stuff interests you, but there it is.

I don't laugh at these people because there are some massive brains who believe this way. I don't have to agree with them to respect them and appreciate their achievements in the common ground we share.

Michael

[moralist]

Michael writes:

I was referring to your own words: "immoral precedent," in other words, the morality of slavery.

You mean the immorality of slavery.

Jesus didn't seem to mind the "immoral precedent" since he never commented about it.

As I said before, Michael... Jesus doesn't address macro social problems, because He isn't a liberal politician trying to resolve them externally by governmental public policy.

Rather every word he spoke is totally focused on what goes on inside of us. This point gets lost on most people because they believe the lie that the cause of their problem is external.

Jesus said:

"No one will say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’; because the Kingdom of God is WITHIN you.”

A person could be a slave and yet be totally happy and at peace with themselves for serving God by doing what is morally right.

The problem isn't external social political or economic conditions. The only real problem is inside us...

...and so is the solution.

You have no idea of the power of getting things set right inside first. For acting in harmony with this internal order is what sets the moral tone to which the world around us graciously acquiesces.

Greg

[moralist]

Michael writes:

Also, in this view, Revelation has to be interpreted strictly in metaphorical terms, otherwise, it doesn't fit.

That's true even though there are also literal correlations, but they are of much lesser importance when compared to what is going on inside of us.

This world is constantly coming to an end...

...it ends for each of us when we die.

Greg

[moralist]

Michael writes:

Or the meaning of the explanation Greg mentioned earlier where Jesus said he spoke in parables to convey meanings only to insiders, whereas outsiders would hear the stories, but not understand them.

These insiders would be those who are already within the Kingdom of God.

...only because It is what they love more than anything else.

It's not exclusionary as you are implying. Everyone gets to freely choose either to love the goodness of the Kingdom of God...

...or to reject it as irrational illogical primitive superstitious nonsense.

This choice has nothing to do with me. It's not a matter of convincing anyone. Only the objective reality of the consequences of your own actions has that power to convince you of the value of doing what's morally right.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

Everyone gets to freely choose either to love the goodness of the Kingdom of God...

...or to reject it as irrational illogical primitive superstitious nonsense.

Well put. Religion is irrational primitive nonsense. That's why they call it "faith."

[Brant Gaede]

Everyone gets to freely choose either to love the goodness of the Kingdom of God...

...or to reject it as irrational illogical primitive superstitious nonsense.

Well put. Religion is irrational primitive nonsense. That's why they call it "faith."

While you just shot a sitting duck the duck is made of steel. It can't float and it can't fly. Therefore Greg will merely keep repeating himself.

Greg seems to be basically a pantheist and culturally a Christian, but a Christian who might see Jesus not as the son of God--son of reality?--but as a prophet of sorts.

If you substitute "reality" for when he says "God" you should get a more accurate idea where he's coming from.

If you think Christianity is "irrational primitve nonsense" you are merely being a modern man. There aren't many like you around, so far. This is not, however, a good description of Christianity for it doesn't cover the whole of it even if it's the essential undergriding.

There is special genius in Christianity with its son of God angle. Eventually it will die off as more and more people substitute reality for God. Worship will be worship of reality but not in the relgious sense of faith, but scientifically with respect and reason.

Religion essentially is to displace ignorance and enable human functioning in a world where brain power is too much for the paucity of data. Get rid of ignorance and over generations religion has to be displaced.

Primitive man cowers in a cave fighting off cave bears. Modern man lives in Los Angeles and goes to the beach. Many people, though, cower still in churches looking a mate or a date or someone looking to sell their home to get the listing. There is enormous economic and social benefit to be a Mormon living among Mormons, for a great example, but the doctrine is nonsense. Catholic doctrine is nonsense too, but a lot of art and great ceremony comes with the package.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

For you amusement:

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/417/

Son O' God Comics.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have no idea why this is relevant, but it feels right.

It kinda works for all sides.

Michael

[D-Ostruh]

The only "instinct" to it is the same basic overall feeling inherent to life of the desire to live. Sexuality is related to the answer of how to make one's life possible. It is controlled by our answers to survival. It is how we choose to channel that desire to live, or that is to say our basic choices do channel it. Those choices are philosophical, so volitional.

Whoopsies. You just made sex a lifestyle choice.

Sure, I did.

[moralist]

Wolf writes:

Well put. Religion is irrational primitive nonsense.

That's your own free choice, Wolf.

And just to be clear, it's not mine.

The beauty of free choice is that one person's choice cannot prevent or alter the choice of another.

Greg

[moralist]

Brant writes:

Greg seems to be basically a pantheist...

Glad to have the opportunity to make it clear that I'm not, Brant.

While it's true I directly experience the objective reality of the physical and moral laws which govern this world, the world under control of those laws certainly isn't God.

That which creates is always greater than what which is created.

Greg

[Dglgmut]

This means that for gay rights activists, preaching pure political tolerance does not work, because most people do not believe in politically tolerating that which they consider immoral. Most people are not politically tolerant.

It also helps that some gay rights activists themselves are not politically tolerant - they don't always embrace the idea that the State should be restricted to banning rights violations. Instead, many gay rights activists believe that the State should ban immoral things, they just define "immoral" differently to how the homophobes define "immoral."

So the classical liberal argument from tolerance and individual rights does not fly consistently with either side of the debate.

This meant that gay rights campaigners had to come up with a different argument to use. Both sides generally accepted the premise that the State's role is to make people be moral, so the obvious tactic is to argue that sexual preference is an innate thing and therefore not a moral issue.

This is interesting but I'd argue that "born this way" is a reaction to the original idea that God does not make gay people. It is immoral because they were not born that way and that they are doing something they know is wrong. "Born this way" is not meant to challenge but to contradict one's beliefs. It is not a discrepancy between moralities, but metaphysics.

I've heard that only 1% of people are actually born with the gay gene, but there is a psychological reason people become gay. I have no idea if that is true.

But if people could turn gay because of psychological issues, it still wouldn't be a choice.

[studiodekadent]

This is interesting but I'd argue that "born this way" is a reaction to the original idea that God does not make gay people. It is immoral because they were not born that way and that they are doing something they know is wrong. "Born this way" is not meant to challenge but to contradict one's beliefs. It is not a discrepancy between moralities, but metaphysics.

I contest your presumption that the "original idea" was that "God does not make gay people." Indeed, the mere concept of sexual orientation is pretty new - there's no mention of it in the Bible or in any Hellenic philosophy. The idea that there are "innately" heterosexual or homosexual people seems to be a product of post-Freudian psychology.

From what I know, the "original idea" is that anyone could engage in sexual activity (or at least "activities which we'd probably describe as sexual") with members of either sex. Viking conquerors raping male prisoners, Greek pederasty (intercrural sex was the only accepted kind of sex but still), Greeks and Romans anally raping male slaves (completely permitted), these are all 'sexual' acts going by modern standards. And yet a free man could rape his male slave in the butt and that didn't impugn his manhood or bring his sexual practice into social disrepute. A viking warrior could rape a male monk he captured and he could still go back home to his wife and shag her.

"Gay" and "Straight" - the idea that someone is innately predisposed to exclusively sexually desire members of the same or the opposite sex, is absent from the historical record.

I've heard that only 1% of people are actually born with the gay gene, but there is a psychological reason people become gay. I have no idea if that is true.

Personal opinion? Its a mix of factors. No one has found a biological factor that 100% results in homosexuality. But we've found several biological correlates, from genetic ones to the Fraternal Birth Order Effect. Plus, frankly, I know a lot of gay (or mostly-gay) men who have been victims of childhood sexual abuse.

In my opinion this doesn't damage the case for gay rights. Gay rights is a product of the fact that consensual sex between members of the same sex doesn't violate anyone's rights, and therefore the "reason" they want to screw members of the same sex is irrelevant. But the point I am making is that IMO, both nature and nurture seem to contribute to sexual preference.

But if people could turn gay because of psychological issues, it still wouldn't be a choice.

Very true. That said, I would go so far to say that even IF it were a choice, that wouldn't make any sexual preference immoral. There's no moral duty to reproduce, and not everyone wants a family.

[Dglgmut]

But if people could turn gay because of psychological issues, it still wouldn't be a choice.

Very true. That said, I would go so far to say that even IF it were a choice, that wouldn't make any sexual preference immoral. There's no moral duty to reproduce, and not everyone wants a family.

Well, like how I said that "God doesn't make gay people," I think the idea is that human sexuality is human sexuality (we're all the same). Of course that's not true, but that is the assumption that makes it a moral issue. If a person does something against his nature, you could argue that it is immoral because it is harmful to the individual.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

Greg seems to be basically a pantheist...

Glad to have the opportunity to make it clear that I'm not, Brant.

While it's true I directly experience the objective reality of the physical and moral laws which govern this world, the world under control of those laws certainly isn't God.

That which creates is always greater than what which is created.

Greg

We should worship quarks?

--Brant

hope I didn't lose you

[objectiveMan]

From what I know, the "original idea" is that anyone could engage in sexual activity (or at least "activities which we'd probably describe as sexual") with members of either sex. Viking conquerors raping male prisoners, Greek pederasty (intercrural sex was the only accepted kind of sex but still), Greeks and Romans anally raping male slaves (completely permitted), these are all 'sexual' acts going by modern standards. And yet a free man could rape his male slave in the butt and that didn't impugn his manhood or bring his sexual practice into social disrepute. A viking warrior could rape a male monk he captured and he could still go back home to his wife and shag her.

"Gay" and "Straight" - the idea that someone is innately predisposed to exclusively sexually desire members of the same or the opposite sex, is absent from the historical record.

I think you may be confusing two things here. Feeling sexual desire towards someone is different than the physical act of having sex. I think whether someone is gay or straight is generally thought to mean the desire part. Like for example some men rape others in prison, but they aren't necessarily gay, there just aren't any women around. Also sex, and specially rape, can also be more about domination than sexual pleasure.

In my opinion this doesn't damage the case for gay rights. Gay rights is a product of the fact that consensual sex between members of the same sex doesn't violate anyone's rights, and therefore the "reason" they want to screw members of the same sex is irrelevant. But the point I am making is that IMO, both nature and nurture seem to contribute to sexual preference.

There is no such thing as gay rights, or at least there shouldn't be. Individuals have rights, not groups.

[moralist]

Brant writes:

We should worship quarks?

We should worship That which designed the laws governing quarks...

...but no one has to.

It's always a free choice.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

It's not a matter of choice primarily, but any result of choice. A lot of teens are in an ambivalent mess about their sexuality because it's so hormonal and new to them. They should be encouraged, not forced, to choose heterosexuality.

--Brant

the primary and necessary biology of the species exists because of the need of reproduction--it's that simple (men and women are made for each other)

[objectiveMan]

It's not a matter of choice primarily, but any result of choice. A lot of teens are in an ambivalent mess about their sexuality because it's so hormonal and new to them. They should be encouraged, not forced, to choose heterosexuality.

It is a shame there are some forces in the world who wish to encourage them the other way. Or at the very least, increase their confusion. This "sex education" in schools to very young kids, who shouldn't even be thinking of sex yet...

[Dglgmut]

I think you may be confusing two things here. Feeling sexual desire towards someone is different than the physical act of having sex. I think whether someone is gay or straight is generally thought to mean the desire part.

But people can "desire" to do any number of masochistic things, many people think intervention is proper in these cases.

The argument comes down to: Is homosexuality bad for the individual?

Here's an interesting interview that is relevant:

[objectiveMan]

As I am not gay, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "gay rights". An objectivist would support or oppose something based on what selfish value it brings to them. I gain very little either way.

What I am against however, is the promotion and glorification of gays in media and culture.

In general, I view marriage as something which does not require special intervention and regulation from government. To me, it is a business contract, and should be treated as such. And more importantly, it is a contract which mostly involves only the two persons entering it. If two adults want to enter into a contract, whether it is marriage or something else, I think the government has no business stopping it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pekka,

Just so you know, the legal reasoning behind the government being involved in marriage is to bring the union under the body of family law (of each country) so that inheritances, legal status of children, health decisions when disabled, divorce (legal, not cultural), and things like that can be defined.

The cultural reasons for marriage vary from culture to culture (and church to church for the religious).

The sanest approach I have seen so far is to replace government involvement. There is no need for a special marriage license for a union to fall under family law. Just refine the statues for common law unions and make sure there are clear reasonable requirements for proof. Maybe, for governmental purposes, marriages could automatically fall under family law if, as proof of the union, they are performed by cultural organizations that meet certain requirements like churches or similar. But this would be a convenience, not an obligation. Legal definitions for common law union work just fine for family law. Then it would be possible to allow each church or philosophical or cultural organization to practice marriage according to its own beliefs. Total separation of church and state.

This way a homosexual union can become a marriage in one church while another church cannot be forced to perform it. But under the law, family rights are protected for everyone.

To keep it tidy, I would restrict family law to the human species (no family law civil unions with a horse or dog or whatever ) and allow for multiple spouses to be included under it.

Keeping to Christianity for simplicity of example, this would mean some denominations could perform homosexual weddings, some (like the Mormon church if the practice ever returns) could perform polygamous marriages, some New Age Christians could perform polyandry marriages, and some denominations could refuse to perform marriage for anyone except one man and one woman. But all would receive family law protections and restrictions.

Not one church or organization would be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that flies in the face of its beliefs.

Not everybody likes this kind of thinking, especially if they are on one side of the divide or the other, but that's what true political freedom looks like.

However, the bottom line is, if two or more people are on a desert island and have a family-like union, does it matter what one calls it? And what outside government law could possibly govern that?

Michael