You're confusing "nature" with "natural law." Homosexual sex (not homosexuality orientation) is against natural law. But natural law is not the same as a "state of nature."
If scientists find a way to "turn gay off," I imagine many homosexuals will take advantage of it. Others won't. They should be free to do that (or not), and at least a "cure" will offer them more freedom, not less.
Of course, I don't remotely believe that there's a "cure" for homosexuality.
It's also amusing that this test was on "fruit flies."
So, when--and it's no longer an "if"--we have a drug that can turn gay people straight, is it going to become okay to discriminate against gays? Or mandate that they get "treatment?"
No. And no.
Nor will it be OK to discriminate against those who choose to be treated.
Sadly, all three will likely happen.
Assuming that this treatment becomes reality -- I'm not as certain as you are -- it becomes a looming crisis, for one reason: minors.
I have no problem with an adult deciding, for whatever reason, that he or she would prefer not to be homosexual, and voluntarily undergoing treatment.
I have little problem with an adult parent or guardian deciding the medical care for a minor. But "little problem" is not "no problem"; and where I have some problem is when adults choose to medicate away the "behavior problems" they perceive in minors. Yes, there are certainly kids with behavioral problems that call for medication; but I think we as a society have gone way overboard in that regard. I see no reason that this attitude won't extend to parents who decide to "cure" their kids of homosexuality.
And I have a problem there. I understand how a parent might think that this is "protecting" a kid from a "troubled" life. My gay friends have told me how rough it is when family and friends can't accept them; and I can understand how a parent could wish to prevent that unhappiness. But frankly, the way to prevent it is to accept them as they are, and to comfort them when other people don't accept them. The world today is less hostile to them than a generation ago, and far less than two. Trying to "protect" them is just a way of holding back that trend.
And trying to "protect" them by medicating them is wrong, verging on immoral. Parents are supposed to advise and influence and guide their children; but ultimately, children have to develop their own personalities. Trying to dictate their preferences -- not their rules or their behavior or their environment, but their very way of thinking -- is frankly mind control, no matter how "noble" your intentions.
You think "mind control" is an exaggeration? Well, let's go to a less controversial topic. Suppose we find a gene and a "treatment" to make a kid want to play basketball. If some parent wanted to fulfill his basketball fantasies by medicating his kid into the NBA, is there any doubt we would find that abusive? Rather than just raising the kid and trying to instill values, we can just dispense values in a needle or a pill. If the kid doesn't like it, we have a pill for that, too. He'll like it just fine.
No.
And if my attempt at a value-neutral basketball analogy doesn't work for you, consider this (implicit in the NY Times piece): if it becomes possible to "treat" homosexuality, it will be equally possible to "treat" heterosexuality. If a gay couple were to "treat" their child to ensure that he grows up gay, I would expect a lot of people to be up in arms.
Children are not playthings. We can influence and support and guide and even discipline them; but we cannot design them.
Fruit flies we knew about more than ten years ago. The story here is in mice--you know, complex mammals.
And it looks like you who's confused Bill; who said anything about "natural law" besides you? I've had more than one fundie tell me that homosexuality is "against nature," that's hardly rare. If anyone is confused it's them.
Speaking from an amoral standpoint, homosexual behavior is risky. So is prolifigate heterosexual activity, but in the absence of male homosexual activity and/or intravenous drug use, not as risky by a large margin.
If society does not have right to control risky behavior, then bans on advertising for cigarettes and laws requiring motorcycle helmets need to be repealed.
M. Emery: I know "fundies" say that, but they're not articulating the argument correctly. It's not nature, it's natural law. That's the actual argument. The nature argument makes no sense. Otherwise, we'd just take our cues from nature and declare that "survival of the fittest" to be morally correct.
My point in asking for this distinction is that it's easy to argue "against nature," but more difficult to argue against "natural law." That's all I'm saying. Sorry if I was unclear. In other words, Dean set up a dichotomy in his paragraph, but he went after an easy target.
Parents of course try 'mind control' on their kids all the time, it is what we call parenting. Obviously some of this mind control is good (tell the truth, share, use the toilet.) So 'mind control' in and of itself is not determanitive as to why this should, or should not, be done.
There are of course other examples that are less clear. We know that their are genetic indicators for a propensity to alcoholism. Is it ok for a parent to give a child medication to 'cure' that condition or should they merely attempt to instill values that keep a kid from being alcoholic? What if we take it a step further back and rather then medication it is choosing to only have children without that particular gene sequence?
I don't know that their are any easy answers to this sort of thing, but I suspect that the actions of individuals would yeild a better outcome then a whole lot of regulation on what must or must not be done.
To clarify IB Bill's point, which is an excellent one, killing ones children is 'natural' and certainly found in nature but it is contrary to 'natural law.' Obviously, many people, both who use and who oppose 'natural law' as a basis for morality misunderstand the meaning of the term.
Parenting is not mind control. It's teaching and influencing -- and where necessary, disciplining and limiting. There's a world of difference.
Computers should be programmed. Children shouldn't be.
We know that their are genetic indicators for a propensity to alcoholism. Is it ok for a parent to give a child medication to 'cure' that condition or should they merely attempt to instill values that keep a kid from being alcoholic?
Alcoholism is a demonstrable harm. While some homosexual behavior has serious, even life-threatening risks, homosexuality itself is not harmful. So the two can't be easily compared.
But to answer your question: I'm in general opposed to "pre-emptive" medication. A genetic propensity to alcoholism is not alcoholims. If the kid's not drinking, there's no need to treat, because there's no problem to be treated.
There are numerous competing theories of natural law; I know the Catholic Church's theory of natural law says that homosexuality is wrong, but theirs isn't the only theory of natural law. So whose theory of natural law are you working under, Bill?
I was just discussing this with an AIDS worker recently. He was joking about putting a chemical in the HAART to change behaviors, but I countered that we could already do that with chemical castration. That got us into human rights issues, how different countries have handled the epidemic, etc.
Short form: It'd be nice from a frustrated public health worker's POV but it will remain elective, IMHO.
As Bill has pointed out, no one who says that homosexuality is "against nature" means by "nature" what the Sierra Club means by "nature". People who talk about homosexuality being "against nature" don't mean nature red in tooth and claw, where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
They mean what things are supposed to be. It's a teleological argument (note: that's not a misspelling of theological); it's a discussion of how things were designed, not what they happen to be now.
The simplest way to show this is that the same people say that homosexuality is unnatural in people will also say that death and sin are unnatural.
Incidentally, there are plenty of curable medical conditions — and even non-curable ones — for which it's OK to discriminate against people. You can require people to be above a certain height to ride a roller coaster, you can require people to be able to see to get a driver's license, you can require people to be healthy before allowing them to join your sports team. It wouldn't surprise me if the boyscouts wanted to discriminate against children who didn't have their standard immunizations.
I don't think that any of these would be like discriminating against voluntarily non-cured homosexuality (granting the premise of the post that homosexuality will eventually be curable), but I do want to point out that the reason why it should not be OK to discriminate against homosexuals even in this hypothetical will require a more specific articulation than "discrimination is bad".
I'm always amazed when someone says "nobody" believes or says certain things, when I've met and talked to people who clearly believe and say quite literally those exact same things.
Perhaps you guys would be better off saying, "In my view, it's not 'against nature,' it's 'against natural law,'" which would actually open up a dialogue rather than you just shooting down someone and calling them stupid for, you know, something they've personally experienced.
By the way, in the interests of debate: okay, if it's natural law you want to talk about, here's a good article on the subject. Personally, I think it makes the point very well that the Christian Trinity could be construed as against natural law (and I love how they quote one of our first First Ladies in defense of that proposition), and how it points out that there is no more basis for claiming that homosexuality is against natural law than it is to claim that masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex are against natural law--and how people would probably laugh you out of town if you said that a married couple having oral sex would be just as sinful as homosexuality.
So whose idea of natural law rules here? Are we only restricting ourselves to Thomas Aquinas' view, or...?
Gotta wonder, too, has anybody bothered actually reading the article linked before commenting? To quote from it:
"As for our ability to switch homosexual behavior on and off in flies, a Harvard study this past summer showed that it could also be done in mice (interestingly, it, like our study, also involved changing the ability to sense pheromones).
"So the question is not if we will understand the biological basis of homosexuality enough to alter it, but when. And what people will choose to do with the knowledge. If there is a demand, I guarantee some pharmaceutical company will make the stuff."
Given how many parents would like to cure their gay kids, and how many adult gays join religious groups like that try to help them cure themselves or remain celibate for life, I have no idea why anyone thinks no one would market a pill to reverse this. Especially if it turns out to be nothing more complicated than alleviating depression by raising serotonin levels, or something like that.
How much of this involved messing around with pheromones and their perception? If it boils down to them tricking mice into thinking the same sex was the other sex then this isn't newsworthy. I'm sure if you got a straight person drunk enough and presented them with a reasonable facsimile of the opposite sex they'd be attracted (heck, you can decrease the drunkenness and increase the quality of the facsimile and come to the same conclusion).
We obviously can't go to mice and say "Hey, so how about that dude I saw you with last night *nudge, nudge*?" and have them say "Dude...wha...aaaarrrgh!" We have no idea whether they were deliberately pursuing the same sex or thought they were pursuing the opposite sex.
Nor will it be OK to discriminate against those who choose to be treated.
Hmm... I'd like to believe that.
We have judges in Maryland threatening to jail parents for truancy if there children are not vaccinated ('choose not to be treated'), and thus not allowed in public schools.
We have people jailed for probation violations for not completing drug or alcohol treatment programs ('choose not to be treated').
We discriminate against smokers ('choose not to be treated') to the extent that they can be fired from their jobs.
If laws get passed outlwaing homosexuals (perhaps because they offend various fanatic religious sects or because there is a verifiable difference in mortality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and it is for the common good)
I am just pointing out that simply saying it is 'Nor will it be OK to discriminate against those who choose to be treated" is not a compelling argument. That libertarian ship has long passed.
Given how many parents would like to cure their gay kids, and how many adult gays join religious groups like that try to help them cure themselves or remain celibate for life, I have no idea why anyone thinks no one would market a pill to reverse this. Especially if it turns out to be nothing more complicated than alleviating depression by raising serotonin levels, or something like that.
A fine point.
I think it should also be noted that one of the most common cries in support of homosexuality being genetic is, "Why would we choose to be like this?"
Well, now it seems they'll have the choice to switch that around.
I wonder how many that have used the above sentence will be in line for the drug once it becomes available?
TYPO: "who fulminatingly insist that heterosexuality is "against nature" "
You mean homosexuality, right?
I didn't get a chance to read all the comments, but I think homosexuality is mostly genetic, therefore it's not a choice, therefore it's not a sin. Furthermore, I think it must have survival value, just as sickle cell has some survival value for africans who live in a malaria zone. Otherwise homosexuality (and sickle cell) would of filtered themselves out of the gene pool, afterall homosexuals usually don't have children.
I didn't get a chance to read all the comments, but I think homosexuality is mostly genetic, therefore it's not a choice, therefore it's not a sin.
Adonai, you know the guy that told us what sin is, seems to disagree with you. I'd suggest talking it over with Him before you start making editorial changes to His material.
Genetic or not, man is a creature of will. Just because we may be predisposed to a kind of behaviour doesn't mean we are not to be taken to account when we indulge behaviours we are told are wrong.
You can't have it both ways and it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong Josh, that you want to have it both ways.
Is man a creature of his nature or a creature of his will? Which has the final say over what we are or what we do?
If man is a creature of his nature then he is no better than the beast in the field. If he is a creature of his will he may attain greatness never seen in the pages of history.
I think that history shows man to be a willful creature that can keep his nature in check if he desires to do so.
Kevin and Naftali, the evidence that I have regarding homosexuality first requires acceptance of the theory of evolution. So you may want to stop reading at this point.
en.wikinews.org
I know there's better evidence out there, but I don't have the time to dig it up right now. A week ago at physorg.com there was an article about fruit flies and homosexuality.
you want to have it both ways.
Coming from you, that statement made me laugh!
Is man a creature of his nature or a creature of his will?
Both.
So if 2 men or 2 women have sex, who is being harmed?
Naftali:
If an african is born black, it's genetic. I can easily prove it's not a choice. So if I was to claim that homosexuality is 100% genetic, I'd expect the same logic to apply. But I'm not convinced it's completely genetic because I don't know enough about the subject.
Is everyone really sure that when people say that homosexuality is "against nature" they ONLY mean that it is against natural law? I don't have an answer, but I do wonder why, even in the law, "crime against nature" refers to sex crimes (like sodomy and bestiality) but never to such crimes as murder and theft, which are also normally considered to be against natural law.
It doesn't fly in the face of the race comparison at all if its genetic. There's no reason why you wouldn't someday be able to genetically alter your racial characteristics or racially linked genes either.
There's also the issue here that if you find a way to turn homosexuality off, you can probably also find a way to turn it on. As this coming generation mostly wipes clean the dislike and persecution of homosexuals, in this future it may well not be so bad to be gay, and in fact it's even possible to see social and cultural advantages (say, if you "can't find a good man," you alter your brain so that you are turned on by women, or vice versa). People like Mark Shea would scream the scream of the Nazgul at the very idea, but it seems equally plausible as a social phenomenon.
Also, I'm always amused with how people seem to think "natural law" means "whatever I want, or I think my religion wants." And then go on to lecture other folks about how they don't understand philosophy.
Since everyone has a different idea of what natural law means, and it basically boils down to opinion, why use it as a basis for argument? You just end up talking past each other because you're not arguing with the same premises.
This of course totally flies in the face of religious people who fulminatingly insist that homosexuality is 'against nature' (bulls***, it's found all over nature in countless species) but it also flies in the face of gay rights activists who insist that homosexuality is an "immutable trait" like race (which I've been telling my friends in the gay community for almost 20 years is a really foolish position to take).
If anyone examines the ancient greeks from the point of view of psychohistory, one will find the greek male mind profoundly fragmented to the extent that child abuse/pedophilia was considered normative in that society. Yippee.
One suspects that doesn't portend a valid excuse for considering, well, its "found all over nature".
false dichotomy. can't man be a creature of both nature and will?
A man can be, and a man is, but one must rule over the other at all times or order is not possible.
So, is a man subject to his nature or is his nature subject to him? While the two may change planes from time to time (I never said man is perfect) we have to agree that one arrangement is infinitely preferrable to the other. If not, down that road is chaos.
Is it now trendy to say "Adonai" and "Yeshua?" Am I the only one who finds this pretentious? Sorry, Kevin.
Whether or not your God sees homosexuality as a sin seems fairly irrelevant. Everybody sins, right? And to paraphrase the underrated KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: "God will understand, my lord. And if he doesn't, then he is not God and we need not worry."
The problem with your analogy to race is that it is the homosexual act which is sinful not the homosexual preference.
We are not talking about a qualitative aspect of an individual. We are talking about a behavior. That there is a genetic cause for the proclivity of the behavior does not absolve you of the responsibility for that behavior. Thus, whether homosexual orientation is a choice or it is genetic is irrelevent to whether the action is a sin or not.
We all have our proclivities to sin. Not everyone's is the same, and not everyone's is from the same cause. Sometimes it's emotional, sometimes spiritual, sometimes physical, but Christians* are called to resist the temptations and abstain from sin anyway.
*Christian morality is only for Christians. Convincing someone to act like a Christian without them having a faith in Christ helps neither you nor the other person.
So if 2 men or 2 women have sex, who is being harmed?
The evidence that I have regarding homosexuality first requires acceptance of the the Laws of Adonai. So you may want to stop reading at this point.
Oh look! Kevin can play the game too!
But if you need a secular reason I can do that too.
The continuation of a society depends upon the values and norms of that society being passed onto later generations. That may only be done through procreation. As homosexuals cannot procreate they give a null return on the investment society made in them by allowing them to function freely in said society.
Who is harmed? Society.
If homosexuality harms no one, what of a society that passes critical mass in homosexual numbers? If homosexuality becomes so prevelant that the society cannot produce enough numbers to ensure its survival to later generations?
Homosexuals make about 3% of the American population. At this number they do not pose a threat to the continuation of our culture and society. But what about 20%? 30%? 60%?
What harm is 2 men or 2 women having sex when they make up 60% of the population? A whole hell of a lot of harm.
So, why permit behaviour we can show is detremental to a healthy society just because the numbers of those that embrace said behaviour is low? Either the behaviour is detremental or it is not.
And when it comes to something as essential, something that is a foundational building block of civilization - procreation, I'm am not willing to play games.
It is a fool that rips out the foundation of a structure while he's is standing under it.
You want to reimagine what makes a healthy civilization grow, do so with your own. I ask you kindly to leave the one I live in alone.
Is it now trendy to say "Adonai" and "Yeshua?" Am I the only one who finds this pretentious? Sorry, Kevin.
No apology needed. It's a choice I'm making to reflect my spiritual growth. I'm sure you will not find those words commonly used within the Christian church and therefore will seem odd to you.
But I've parted ways with the Christian Church on a number of issues and wish to make it clear in the language I use that I'm not speaking as a member of mainstream Christianity.
I wouldn't have happily told you this if you simply e-mail me and asked instead of... well... the approach you chose.
Whether or not your God sees homosexuality as a sin seems fairly irrelevant.
Some 85% of the nation believe Yeshua to be the Son of Adonai. So, I think it would be safe to say a significant portion of the nation doesn't think it's irrelevant.
And, it's these same people you need to convice there's nothing wrong with homosexuality to get laws passed legalizing it.
Call them blind. Call them stupid. Call them bigots. But also remember to call them the voting audience.
"So, is a man subject to his nature or is his nature subject to him?"
A human being has human nature, and what you will is your nature. They are one in the same.
"But if you need a secular reason I can do that too."
Ouch. You should probably stick to just citing religious reasons, because these are just amazingly silly.
The idea that having kids is the ONLY way to contribute to society is simply nonsense. And even if it weren't homosexuals can have AND raise children, and already do. So it's a moot point in any case.
"What harm is 2 men or 2 women having sex when they make up 60% of the population? A whole hell of a lot of harm."
This is about as fallacious as saying that if your diet consists of 60% sugar, then the normal amount of sugar "causes a whole hell of a lot of harm." Plus, even in in the extremely unlikely situation in which 60% of people were childless gays (which we've already mentioned is based on you totally not getting the reality of gay people) that situation wouldn't last long and the reproduction of the rest of the population would quickly increase in any case. "Society" would be no better or worse off for even many people living but not having kids.
"So, why permit behaviour we can show is detremental to a healthy society just because the numbers of those that embrace said behaviour is low? Either the behaviour is detremental or it is not. "
Again: I would call this dumb logic if there was any logic to be seen. First off, you _didn't_ show it was detrimental in the first place. Your argument for why it was detrimental was essentially "what would happen if this trend was taken to an extremely unrealistic and unlikely extreme... and since I wouldn't like it, therefore any amount is bad." You can't then go back and consider the situation where the numbers are low, which directly contradicts your whole example, and then claim you've proved anything!
"You want to reimagine what makes a healthy civilization grow, do so with your own. I ask you kindly to leave the one I live in alone."
The EXACT same thing has been said against nearly every improvement to human society: slavery, women's suffrage and legal equality, etc. "I just likes it this way" is not an argument. You have to explain why it's unhealthy (as opposed to not only healthy, but a longtime reality in nearly every society in existence: just something that before involved silence and persecution).
And finally, you are more than welcome to go live in a shack by yourself. No one is forcing you to live in this civilization. But if you plan on doing so, please recognize that you are not the only one living in it, ok?
A man can be, and a man is, but one must rule over the other at all times or order is not possible.
Agree with Kevin here. If you remove the topic from the relatively innocuous sexual question and move it to, say, violence, its becomes trivial to argue that while man has characteristics of both, will is to be encouraged over "nature". And anyway, will is an integral part of our nature to begin with, so possibly what we're arguing is over "nature as abdication of will".
Is it now trendy to say "Adonai" and "Yeshua?" Am I the only one who finds this pretentious?
No.
It's a choice I'm making to reflect my spiritual growth.
Nice to hear that, Kevin, and I'm happy for you, but that doesn't make it any less pretentious--which means you still have a long way to grow.
Now then, as to "nature" vs "natural law." I see it this way. Nature makes us horny so we will have sex, and it doesn't really care with whom or with what. Nature creates the impulse. Natural law, on the other hand, dictates that heterosexuality is the default position for human beings since heterosexual sexual intercourse (for the time being) is the onlynatural way humans can reproduce. Any physical/genetic limitation/disability or personal decision made counter to that end, or any artificial medical/surgical intervention to help bring it about is purely arbitrary (either by will or by chance), not "unnatural" or "against nature."
You make a very good point. Your post made me realize that if child molesters do their evil because of a genetic defect, they are still committing evil. I'd expect them to either get treatment (which probably won't work), get castrated, or kill themselves.
Your point about christian morality makes sense. I guess the only real problem would be homosexuals who consider themselves christians...
But I think I'd have to say that if homosexuals live moral and just lives according to christianity (except for the sex part), according to my views, IF there's a God, AND if there's judgment, those homosexuals would be judged well. I must state that this is only my feelings and is not based on any religious knowledge whatsoever.
Kevin:
"If homosexuality harms no one, what of a society that passes critical mass in homosexual numbers? If homosexuality becomes so prevelant that the society cannot produce enough numbers to ensure its survival to later generations?"
Ahhh, I see where you're going with this. Homosexuality would have to be a contagious virus for this to be an issue. Considering how it exists in other species, I firmly believe it has survival value. Exactly what that value is I have no idea, but my hypothesis is this: For men, they can be left to guard the women and children while the other men go hunt. For women it's the same DNA that affects men but it also affects women OR perhaps it might make some women (the 'men' in the female-female relationships) better fighters/hunters. Since women traditionally have been much more dominated by men in the past than they are today, I can see homosexual women of the past being married off and expected to have sex with their husbands even if they didn't want to. Which COULD partly explain why a homosexual 'gene' gets passed on.
"So, why permit behaviour we can show is detremental to a healthy society just because the numbers of those that embrace said behaviour is low? Either the behaviour is detremental or it is not. "
I don't see how it's detrimental to society unless you can show that the rate of homosexuality is increasing, and thus a population's growth is declining or going negative. From that perspective I'd say abortion is much worse to a society. I also don't think the word 'permit' is appropriate, I'd say 'approve of' instead.
"it's these same people you need to convince there's nothing wrong with homosexuality to get laws passed legalizing it."
I'll never vote for redefining what the words marriage, divorce, husband and wife mean. No way. However, civil unions I can support since they'd bring the legal benefits of marriage (inheritance, medical decisions, cheaper insurance, etc). When 2 homosexuals state they truly love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, I believe them and wish them the best.
RE: Child Molesters. You left out permanent removal from society: Life sentence w/o parole. They don't have to off themselves to render them unable to do harm.
RE: Homosexual Christians. It is not their living otherwise just and moral lives that gets them into Heaven. Neither is it my living a just and moral life that gets me into Heaven. God doesn't grade on a curve. There are two ways to get to Heaven: 1) Be perfect 2) Believe in Christ. It doesn't matter how 'good, just and moral' you live, you still ain't perfect so 1) is right out. This leaves only option 2).
I don't pretend to be able to judge your faith (and hence your salvation status). I trust that God, being a just and perfect God, will get it right quite without my help. That being said, if you profess a faith in Christ, then, as a fellow member of the faith, it is my duty to try to help you live that faith as best as possible. And no that doesn't mean metaphorically hitting you over the head with your grandma's 30 pound Bible. :-)
If you do not profess a faith in Christ, your actions are of little consequence. It is our job then, not to correct your behavior, but to convince you to come back home to Him. And just as your mom's nagging never made you desire to clean your room, the Bible Thumper on the street corner's nagging doesn't make anyone desire to come home to Christ either.
As Dean will tell you, some time ago I decided that the sexual preferences of people are strictly their own business, so long as it involves consenting adults.
Moreover, I think there is something sick about those who have fixations on the sex lives of other people.
Of course, not being a Christian or for that matter, any other sort of believer, I have no concept of "sin". But that reinforces my decision not to judge other folks about matters for which I am truly indifferent.
I also think it's their business so long as they're consenting adults, and I support civil unions,
but I still think it's disgusting...
(except when 2 hot women get it on)
12.14.2007 11:25pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
As for your questions, no and no!
I'm against anything that might threaten the existence of the gay pride parade. It's just too much damn fun.
If scientists find a way to "turn gay off," I imagine many homosexuals will take advantage of it. Others won't. They should be free to do that (or not), and at least a "cure" will offer them more freedom, not less.
Of course, I don't remotely believe that there's a "cure" for homosexuality.
It's also amusing that this test was on "fruit flies."
No. And no.
Nor will it be OK to discriminate against those who choose to be treated.
Sadly, all three will likely happen.
Assuming that this treatment becomes reality -- I'm not as certain as you are -- it becomes a looming crisis, for one reason: minors.
I have no problem with an adult deciding, for whatever reason, that he or she would prefer not to be homosexual, and voluntarily undergoing treatment.
I have little problem with an adult parent or guardian deciding the medical care for a minor. But "little problem" is not "no problem"; and where I have some problem is when adults choose to medicate away the "behavior problems" they perceive in minors. Yes, there are certainly kids with behavioral problems that call for medication; but I think we as a society have gone way overboard in that regard. I see no reason that this attitude won't extend to parents who decide to "cure" their kids of homosexuality.
And I have a problem there. I understand how a parent might think that this is "protecting" a kid from a "troubled" life. My gay friends have told me how rough it is when family and friends can't accept them; and I can understand how a parent could wish to prevent that unhappiness. But frankly, the way to prevent it is to accept them as they are, and to comfort them when other people don't accept them. The world today is less hostile to them than a generation ago, and far less than two. Trying to "protect" them is just a way of holding back that trend.
And trying to "protect" them by medicating them is wrong, verging on immoral. Parents are supposed to advise and influence and guide their children; but ultimately, children have to develop their own personalities. Trying to dictate their preferences -- not their rules or their behavior or their environment, but their very way of thinking -- is frankly mind control, no matter how "noble" your intentions.
You think "mind control" is an exaggeration? Well, let's go to a less controversial topic. Suppose we find a gene and a "treatment" to make a kid want to play basketball. If some parent wanted to fulfill his basketball fantasies by medicating his kid into the NBA, is there any doubt we would find that abusive? Rather than just raising the kid and trying to instill values, we can just dispense values in a needle or a pill. If the kid doesn't like it, we have a pill for that, too. He'll like it just fine.
No.
And if my attempt at a value-neutral basketball analogy doesn't work for you, consider this (implicit in the NY Times piece): if it becomes possible to "treat" homosexuality, it will be equally possible to "treat" heterosexuality. If a gay couple were to "treat" their child to ensure that he grows up gay, I would expect a lot of people to be up in arms.
Children are not playthings. We can influence and support and guide and even discipline them; but we cannot design them.
And it looks like you who's confused Bill; who said anything about "natural law" besides you? I've had more than one fundie tell me that homosexuality is "against nature," that's hardly rare. If anyone is confused it's them.
If society does not have right to control risky behavior, then bans on advertising for cigarettes and laws requiring motorcycle helmets need to be repealed.
And P Mike, those things SHOULD be repealed.
My point in asking for this distinction is that it's easy to argue "against nature," but more difficult to argue against "natural law." That's all I'm saying. Sorry if I was unclear. In other words, Dean set up a dichotomy in his paragraph, but he went after an easy target.
Parents of course try 'mind control' on their kids all the time, it is what we call parenting. Obviously some of this mind control is good (tell the truth, share, use the toilet.) So 'mind control' in and of itself is not determanitive as to why this should, or should not, be done.
There are of course other examples that are less clear. We know that their are genetic indicators for a propensity to alcoholism. Is it ok for a parent to give a child medication to 'cure' that condition or should they merely attempt to instill values that keep a kid from being alcoholic? What if we take it a step further back and rather then medication it is choosing to only have children without that particular gene sequence?
I don't know that their are any easy answers to this sort of thing, but I suspect that the actions of individuals would yeild a better outcome then a whole lot of regulation on what must or must not be done.
Parenting is not mind control. It's teaching and influencing -- and where necessary, disciplining and limiting. There's a world of difference.
Computers should be programmed. Children shouldn't be.
Alcoholism is a demonstrable harm. While some homosexual behavior has serious, even life-threatening risks, homosexuality itself is not harmful. So the two can't be easily compared.
But to answer your question: I'm in general opposed to "pre-emptive" medication. A genetic propensity to alcoholism is not alcoholims. If the kid's not drinking, there's no need to treat, because there's no problem to be treated.
No we won't. Even if it becomes possible to make one, nobody will market it. Although I think the commercials would be funny.
I was just discussing this with an AIDS worker recently. He was joking about putting a chemical in the HAART to change behaviors, but I countered that we could already do that with chemical castration. That got us into human rights issues, how different countries have handled the epidemic, etc.
Short form: It'd be nice from a frustrated public health worker's POV but it will remain elective, IMHO.
As Bill has pointed out, no one who says that homosexuality is "against nature" means by "nature" what the Sierra Club means by "nature". People who talk about homosexuality being "against nature" don't mean nature red in tooth and claw, where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
They mean what things are supposed to be. It's a teleological argument (note: that's not a misspelling of theological); it's a discussion of how things were designed, not what they happen to be now.
The simplest way to show this is that the same people say that homosexuality is unnatural in people will also say that death and sin are unnatural.
I don't think that any of these would be like discriminating against voluntarily non-cured homosexuality (granting the premise of the post that homosexuality will eventually be curable), but I do want to point out that the reason why it should not be OK to discriminate against homosexuals even in this hypothetical will require a more specific articulation than "discrimination is bad".
Perhaps you guys would be better off saying, "In my view, it's not 'against nature,' it's 'against natural law,'" which would actually open up a dialogue rather than you just shooting down someone and calling them stupid for, you know, something they've personally experienced.
By the way, in the interests of debate: okay, if it's natural law you want to talk about, here's a good article on the subject. Personally, I think it makes the point very well that the Christian Trinity could be construed as against natural law (and I love how they quote one of our first First Ladies in defense of that proposition), and how it points out that there is no more basis for claiming that homosexuality is against natural law than it is to claim that masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex are against natural law--and how people would probably laugh you out of town if you said that a married couple having oral sex would be just as sinful as homosexuality.
So whose idea of natural law rules here? Are we only restricting ourselves to Thomas Aquinas' view, or...?
"As for our ability to switch homosexual behavior on and off in flies, a Harvard study this past summer showed that it could also be done in mice (interestingly, it, like our study, also involved changing the ability to sense pheromones).
"So the question is not if we will understand the biological basis of homosexuality enough to alter it, but when. And what people will choose to do with the knowledge. If there is a demand, I guarantee some pharmaceutical company will make the stuff."
Given how many parents would like to cure their gay kids, and how many adult gays join religious groups like that try to help them cure themselves or remain celibate for life, I have no idea why anyone thinks no one would market a pill to reverse this. Especially if it turns out to be nothing more complicated than alleviating depression by raising serotonin levels, or something like that.
How much of this involved messing around with pheromones and their perception? If it boils down to them tricking mice into thinking the same sex was the other sex then this isn't newsworthy. I'm sure if you got a straight person drunk enough and presented them with a reasonable facsimile of the opposite sex they'd be attracted (heck, you can decrease the drunkenness and increase the quality of the facsimile and come to the same conclusion).
We obviously can't go to mice and say "Hey, so how about that dude I saw you with last night *nudge, nudge*?" and have them say "Dude...wha...aaaarrrgh!" We have no idea whether they were deliberately pursuing the same sex or thought they were pursuing the opposite sex.
Heh.
Hmm... I'd like to believe that.
We have judges in Maryland threatening to jail parents for truancy if there children are not vaccinated ('choose not to be treated'), and thus not allowed in public schools.
We have people jailed for probation violations for not completing drug or alcohol treatment programs ('choose not to be treated').
We discriminate against smokers ('choose not to be treated') to the extent that they can be fired from their jobs.
If laws get passed outlwaing homosexuals (perhaps because they offend various fanatic religious sects or because there is a verifiable difference in mortality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and it is for the common good)
I am just pointing out that simply saying it is 'Nor will it be OK to discriminate against those who choose to be treated" is not a compelling argument. That libertarian ship has long passed.
First, they came for the smokers. yada, yada...
A fine point.
I think it should also be noted that one of the most common cries in support of homosexuality being genetic is, "Why would we choose to be like this?"
Well, now it seems they'll have the choice to switch that around.
I wonder how many that have used the above sentence will be in line for the drug once it becomes available?
You mean homosexuality, right?
I didn't get a chance to read all the comments, but I think homosexuality is mostly genetic, therefore it's not a choice, therefore it's not a sin. Furthermore, I think it must have survival value, just as sickle cell has some survival value for africans who live in a malaria zone. Otherwise homosexuality (and sickle cell) would of filtered themselves out of the gene pool, afterall homosexuals usually don't have children.
That's why I added:
I don't think it will be OK. I do think it will be inevitable. And I don't like that.
Adonai, you know the guy that told us what sin is, seems to disagree with you. I'd suggest talking it over with Him before you start making editorial changes to His material.
Genetic or not, man is a creature of will. Just because we may be predisposed to a kind of behaviour doesn't mean we are not to be taken to account when we indulge behaviours we are told are wrong.
You can't have it both ways and it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong Josh, that you want to have it both ways.
Is man a creature of his nature or a creature of his will? Which has the final say over what we are or what we do?
If man is a creature of his nature then he is no better than the beast in the field. If he is a creature of his will he may attain greatness never seen in the pages of history.
I think that history shows man to be a willful creature that can keep his nature in check if he desires to do so.
false dichotomy. can't man be a creature of both nature and will?
Have you completely made up your mind on this, Josh.
Can you prove it?
not that you have to; to me, at least.
Naftali
So which specific gay rights were you in favor of well before ?it as popular.
en.wikinews.org
I know there's better evidence out there, but I don't have the time to dig it up right now. A week ago at physorg.com there was an article about fruit flies and homosexuality.
Coming from you, that statement made me laugh!
Both.
So if 2 men or 2 women have sex, who is being harmed?
Naftali:
If an african is born black, it's genetic. I can easily prove it's not a choice. So if I was to claim that homosexuality is 100% genetic, I'd expect the same logic to apply. But I'm not convinced it's completely genetic because I don't know enough about the subject.
There's also the issue here that if you find a way to turn homosexuality off, you can probably also find a way to turn it on. As this coming generation mostly wipes clean the dislike and persecution of homosexuals, in this future it may well not be so bad to be gay, and in fact it's even possible to see social and cultural advantages (say, if you "can't find a good man," you alter your brain so that you are turned on by women, or vice versa). People like Mark Shea would scream the scream of the Nazgul at the very idea, but it seems equally plausible as a social phenomenon.
Also, I'm always amused with how people seem to think "natural law" means "whatever I want, or I think my religion wants." And then go on to lecture other folks about how they don't understand philosophy.
Ryan
This of course totally flies in the face of religious people who fulminatingly insist that homosexuality is 'against nature' (bulls***, it's found all over nature in countless species) but it also flies in the face of gay rights activists who insist that homosexuality is an "immutable trait" like race (which I've been telling my friends in the gay community for almost 20 years is a really foolish position to take).
If anyone examines the ancient greeks from the point of view of psychohistory, one will find the greek male mind profoundly fragmented to the extent that child abuse/pedophilia was considered normative in that society. Yippee.
One suspects that doesn't portend a valid excuse for considering, well, its "found all over nature".
A man can be, and a man is, but one must rule over the other at all times or order is not possible.
So, is a man subject to his nature or is his nature subject to him? While the two may change planes from time to time (I never said man is perfect) we have to agree that one arrangement is infinitely preferrable to the other. If not, down that road is chaos.
Is it now trendy to say "Adonai" and "Yeshua?" Am I the only one who finds this pretentious? Sorry, Kevin.
Whether or not your God sees homosexuality as a sin seems fairly irrelevant. Everybody sins, right? And to paraphrase the underrated KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: "God will understand, my lord. And if he doesn't, then he is not God and we need not worry."
The problem with your analogy to race is that it is the homosexual act which is sinful not the homosexual preference.
We are not talking about a qualitative aspect of an individual. We are talking about a behavior. That there is a genetic cause for the proclivity of the behavior does not absolve you of the responsibility for that behavior. Thus, whether homosexual orientation is a choice or it is genetic is irrelevent to whether the action is a sin or not.
We all have our proclivities to sin. Not everyone's is the same, and not everyone's is from the same cause. Sometimes it's emotional, sometimes spiritual, sometimes physical, but Christians* are called to resist the temptations and abstain from sin anyway.
*Christian morality is only for Christians. Convincing someone to act like a Christian without them having a faith in Christ helps neither you nor the other person.
The evidence that I have regarding homosexuality first requires acceptance of the the Laws of Adonai. So you may want to stop reading at this point.
Oh look! Kevin can play the game too!
But if you need a secular reason I can do that too.
The continuation of a society depends upon the values and norms of that society being passed onto later generations. That may only be done through procreation. As homosexuals cannot procreate they give a null return on the investment society made in them by allowing them to function freely in said society.
Who is harmed? Society.
If homosexuality harms no one, what of a society that passes critical mass in homosexual numbers? If homosexuality becomes so prevelant that the society cannot produce enough numbers to ensure its survival to later generations?
Homosexuals make about 3% of the American population. At this number they do not pose a threat to the continuation of our culture and society. But what about 20%? 30%? 60%?
What harm is 2 men or 2 women having sex when they make up 60% of the population? A whole hell of a lot of harm.
So, why permit behaviour we can show is detremental to a healthy society just because the numbers of those that embrace said behaviour is low? Either the behaviour is detremental or it is not.
And when it comes to something as essential, something that is a foundational building block of civilization - procreation, I'm am not willing to play games.
It is a fool that rips out the foundation of a structure while he's is standing under it.
You want to reimagine what makes a healthy civilization grow, do so with your own. I ask you kindly to leave the one I live in alone.
No apology needed. It's a choice I'm making to reflect my spiritual growth. I'm sure you will not find those words commonly used within the Christian church and therefore will seem odd to you.
But I've parted ways with the Christian Church on a number of issues and wish to make it clear in the language I use that I'm not speaking as a member of mainstream Christianity.
I wouldn't have happily told you this if you simply e-mail me and asked instead of... well... the approach you chose.
Some 85% of the nation believe Yeshua to be the Son of Adonai. So, I think it would be safe to say a significant portion of the nation doesn't think it's irrelevant.
And, it's these same people you need to convice there's nothing wrong with homosexuality to get laws passed legalizing it.
Call them blind. Call them stupid. Call them bigots. But also remember to call them the voting audience.
Sorry. I meant, "I would have happily told you..."
A human being has human nature, and what you will is your nature. They are one in the same.
"But if you need a secular reason I can do that too."
Ouch. You should probably stick to just citing religious reasons, because these are just amazingly silly.
The idea that having kids is the ONLY way to contribute to society is simply nonsense. And even if it weren't homosexuals can have AND raise children, and already do. So it's a moot point in any case.
"What harm is 2 men or 2 women having sex when they make up 60% of the population? A whole hell of a lot of harm."
This is about as fallacious as saying that if your diet consists of 60% sugar, then the normal amount of sugar "causes a whole hell of a lot of harm." Plus, even in in the extremely unlikely situation in which 60% of people were childless gays (which we've already mentioned is based on you totally not getting the reality of gay people) that situation wouldn't last long and the reproduction of the rest of the population would quickly increase in any case. "Society" would be no better or worse off for even many people living but not having kids.
"So, why permit behaviour we can show is detremental to a healthy society just because the numbers of those that embrace said behaviour is low? Either the behaviour is detremental or it is not. "
Again: I would call this dumb logic if there was any logic to be seen. First off, you _didn't_ show it was detrimental in the first place. Your argument for why it was detrimental was essentially "what would happen if this trend was taken to an extremely unrealistic and unlikely extreme... and since I wouldn't like it, therefore any amount is bad." You can't then go back and consider the situation where the numbers are low, which directly contradicts your whole example, and then claim you've proved anything!
"You want to reimagine what makes a healthy civilization grow, do so with your own. I ask you kindly to leave the one I live in alone."
The EXACT same thing has been said against nearly every improvement to human society: slavery, women's suffrage and legal equality, etc. "I just likes it this way" is not an argument. You have to explain why it's unhealthy (as opposed to not only healthy, but a longtime reality in nearly every society in existence: just something that before involved silence and persecution).
And finally, you are more than welcome to go live in a shack by yourself. No one is forcing you to live in this civilization. But if you plan on doing so, please recognize that you are not the only one living in it, ok?
Agree with Kevin here. If you remove the topic from the relatively innocuous sexual question and move it to, say, violence, its becomes trivial to argue that while man has characteristics of both, will is to be encouraged over "nature". And anyway, will is an integral part of our nature to begin with, so possibly what we're arguing is over "nature as abdication of will".
Now then, as to "nature" vs "natural law." I see it this way. Nature makes us horny so we will have sex, and it doesn't really care with whom or with what. Nature creates the impulse. Natural law, on the other hand, dictates that heterosexuality is the default position for human beings since heterosexual sexual intercourse (for the time being) is the only natural way humans can reproduce. Any physical/genetic limitation/disability or personal decision made counter to that end, or any artificial medical/surgical intervention to help bring it about is purely arbitrary (either by will or by chance), not "unnatural" or "against nature."
You make a very good point. Your post made me realize that if child molesters do their evil because of a genetic defect, they are still committing evil. I'd expect them to either get treatment (which probably won't work), get castrated, or kill themselves.
Your point about christian morality makes sense. I guess the only real problem would be homosexuals who consider themselves christians...
But I think I'd have to say that if homosexuals live moral and just lives according to christianity (except for the sex part), according to my views, IF there's a God, AND if there's judgment, those homosexuals would be judged well. I must state that this is only my feelings and is not based on any religious knowledge whatsoever.
Kevin:
Ahhh, I see where you're going with this. Homosexuality would have to be a contagious virus for this to be an issue. Considering how it exists in other species, I firmly believe it has survival value. Exactly what that value is I have no idea, but my hypothesis is this: For men, they can be left to guard the women and children while the other men go hunt. For women it's the same DNA that affects men but it also affects women OR perhaps it might make some women (the 'men' in the female-female relationships) better fighters/hunters. Since women traditionally have been much more dominated by men in the past than they are today, I can see homosexual women of the past being married off and expected to have sex with their husbands even if they didn't want to. Which COULD partly explain why a homosexual 'gene' gets passed on.
I don't see how it's detrimental to society unless you can show that the rate of homosexuality is increasing, and thus a population's growth is declining or going negative. From that perspective I'd say abortion is much worse to a society. I also don't think the word 'permit' is appropriate, I'd say 'approve of' instead.
I'll never vote for redefining what the words marriage, divorce, husband and wife mean. No way. However, civil unions I can support since they'd bring the legal benefits of marriage (inheritance, medical decisions, cheaper insurance, etc). When 2 homosexuals state they truly love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, I believe them and wish them the best.
RE: Child Molesters. You left out permanent removal from society: Life sentence w/o parole. They don't have to off themselves to render them unable to do harm.
RE: Homosexual Christians. It is not their living otherwise just and moral lives that gets them into Heaven. Neither is it my living a just and moral life that gets me into Heaven. God doesn't grade on a curve. There are two ways to get to Heaven: 1) Be perfect 2) Believe in Christ. It doesn't matter how 'good, just and moral' you live, you still ain't perfect so 1) is right out. This leaves only option 2).
I don't pretend to be able to judge your faith (and hence your salvation status). I trust that God, being a just and perfect God, will get it right quite without my help. That being said, if you profess a faith in Christ, then, as a fellow member of the faith, it is my duty to try to help you live that faith as best as possible. And no that doesn't mean metaphorically hitting you over the head with your grandma's 30 pound Bible. :-)
If you do not profess a faith in Christ, your actions are of little consequence. It is our job then, not to correct your behavior, but to convince you to come back home to Him. And just as your mom's nagging never made you desire to clean your room, the Bible Thumper on the street corner's nagging doesn't make anyone desire to come home to Christ either.
One who does so has sinned against Torah.
There are many act that Torah prohibits.
A man is not defined by any particular act; and we do not know how G-d judges a man after he passes on.
I don't think a man has to, nor is it possible for him to, have will triumph over nature at all times. No man is that strong-willed.
I'm hoping we can eventually find a cure for those.
Moreover, I think there is something sick about those who have fixations on the sex lives of other people.
Of course, not being a Christian or for that matter, any other sort of believer, I have no concept of "sin". But that reinforces my decision not to judge other folks about matters for which I am truly indifferent.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
but I still think it's disgusting...
(except when 2 hot women get it on)
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.