Today on Meet the Press, GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani was asked to weigh in on upstart insurgent Mike Huckabee’s 1992 claim that homosexuality was an “aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle.” Here’s what the Mayor had to say:
Giuliani, who appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said in response to a question that he did not believe homosexuality was aberrant.
“The way somebody leads their life isn’t sinful. It’s the acts,” said Giuliani, who supports gay rights and lived with an openly gay couple after separating from his second wife while mayor. “It’s the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the orientation that they have.”
So imagine my surprise upon discovering that the Drudge Report, as of 6:17 pm here in the East, currently sports the subheadline, “Rudy: It’s sinful…”
Matt Drudge needs to either take a logic class, or a reading comprehension refresher, or both. The “acts” that Rudy refers to as sinful in his statement are not those that constitute homosexual behavior. If they were, Rudy would be contradicting himself in the same breath, considering Rudy’s statement that the way somebody leads their life “isn’t sinful.” The statement is a bit jumbled to be sure, but I think what Rudy is saying is that the homosexual lifestyle can’t be sinful because said lifestyle is simply an emanation of sexual orientation, which science and observation increasingly tells us is something other than a choice. Rudy’s reference to sinful “acts” seems to be included in the statement to further distinguish between that which can be adjudicated morally (actions, where choice is involved), and that which cannot be judged as either moral or immoral (traits, where no choice is involved). It seems to me that Rudy is quite clearly adjudicating homosexual behavior as something other than immoral, and this seems to be due to Rudy’s belief that such behavior is the product of orientation, over which the individual has no control.
While I would prefer that our presidential candidates simply refuse to respond to any questions that involve the subject of “sin,” an inherently theological topic that is irrelevant to a candidate’s fitness to hold public office in a secular political system, I think that Rudy answered this question in a morally mature way that will sit well with the millions of Americans who, over the past few years, have evolved on the issue of homosexuality as family members, friends, and loved ones have emerged from the proverbial closet. With Rudy, America will have a president who shares the views of the mainstream on these issues, as opposed to certain other GOP candidates who would seemingly prefer to stand athwart history yelling, “stop,” in order to preserve ancient, antiquated, and increasingly outdated cultural biases favored by a rigid sectarian minority.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Well, I mean, I guess he’s right, from a Christian perspective. I guess that if someone asked me whether homosexuality was a sin, I’d have to say that it is. According to the Bible: yes, it is. I don’t believe in the Bible, though, so I don’t care, and I’m supremely confident that Rudy won’t discriminate against gays while in office!
December 9th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I mean homosexual acts — I was a little irritated at first that he said that the acts were sinful, but, well, they are, according to Christian doctrine.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Rudy’s answer is incoherent DaveG. I don’t blame Drudge for his interpretation. I’ve also never understood the argument that homosexuality isn’t wrong because it’s “not a choice”. Lots of things “aren’t a choice” in the same sense, and to the same extent. It’s very likely that certain individuals are genetically pre-disposed to criminality. We don’t let them off the hook. The “it’s not a choice” argument is a red-herring, and a particularly bizarre one. People who advance this argument ought to simply say what they mean; homosexuality is morally acceptable, because it’s a private act. They don’t say this of course, because it’s a considerably broader proposition and one which, I suspect, quite alot of people are likely to reject.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Why didn’t Rudy respond, “yes it is a sin, just like adultery�
December 9th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Homosexuality is morally neutral in the same way that heterosexuality is. We don’t let people that are predisposed to criminality off of the hook because they harm other people. That’s why we legislate against it.
Unless you’re a theocrat, there’s no reason at all to drag the debate over the morality of homosexuality from a Biblical standpoint — and that’s really the only way that anyone could proclaim it immoral: from a religious standpoint. I can think of no secular argument against sexual attractions to the same sex or sexual acts with the same sex — so this entire argument is really just a Trojan Horse for religious legislation.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Bjalder26 — Because adultery breaks a vow you made to someone and harms another person emotionally. Homosexuals in a devoted, loving relationship harm no one and please themselves. So it’s not quite the same, even from, I imagine, a Christian standpoint.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Er, to #5 — “from a Biblical standpoint…into the public square, so this entire argument”*
December 9th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“It’s very likely that certain individuals are genetically pre-disposed to criminality.”
That must be hillbilly science because no such genetic evidence exists.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
“People who advance this argument ought to simply say what they mean; homosexuality is morally acceptable, because it’s a private act.”
Well, that’s true as well. I, for example, would be fine with decriminalizing lots of currently-illegal mind-altering substances. I think it’s absolutely absurd that a 20-year-old caught smoking pot should have a criminal record. Private acts only become immoral when they endanger the public to a certain extent. But even here we have to be careful of the slippery slope. Every time someone lights up a cigarette, that smoke has to go somewhere. Technically, the smoker is always endangering the public. So there’s a balance of rights involved.
But back to homosexual activity. The reason that whether orientation is a choice is pertinent is that if gays are “born that way,” homosexual behavior becomes a bit different than smoking a joint. Imagine someone telling you that acting on your natural impulses since hitting puberty — kissing someone you like, dating your love interest, committing to someone you love — is all taboo and prohibited and offensive to the deity who created us all. That is exactly what we’ve done to gays for most of human history because of superstition and ignorance and fear. The notion that human beings should be denied the ability to live a normal life simply because certain people, without any empirical evidence, believe that a few ancient Near Eastern writings were inspired by a non-human intelligence seems to me absurd.
Think that the “gay lifestyle” is unhealthy? Try encouraging gays to live in monogamous, long-term, committed relationships through domestic benefits and civil unions and see what happens.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
“Think that the “gay lifestyle†is unhealthy? Try encouraging gays to live in monogamous, long-term, committed relationships through domestic benefits and civil unions and see what happens.”
Wouldn’t want to do that. It’s far more important to make sure that the government isn’t endorsing something that’s contrary to GOD’S WORD, DaveG.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
And Feltcher — You have no idea what you’re talking about. There is overwhelming genetic evidence that some people are predisposed to have a more aggressive personality.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Feltcher,
I know for a fact that a stunning percentage of criminals and murders have XYY chromosomes, just to name one example.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
It is rather depressing, though, when you think about it. We’re supposed to be this pluralistic, tolerant society, and the government is telling me that I’m not allowed to share the same partnership rights as the rest of the population because, really, of some ancient superstition. There is no rational, secular reason to condemn homosexuality.
But there’s the eternal infinite wisdom of the general population, again!
December 9th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Rudy’s statement is incoherant, I agree with #3. If the homosexual act is a sin, then surely Rudy says its sinful?
Biblical perspective is clear that homosexual acts are sinful. I guess Rudy was trying to keep pandering to committed Christians, but say something unclear so that in the general he could deny that “he didn’t mean it like that”
December 9th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
TLG, Christians find it equally distressing that society has abandoned God to the point that people try to prevent God’s Laws from being exercised on the grounds of Human Rights. Christians would suggest that given God created man, man shouldn’t be legislating what God can & can’t legislate…
December 9th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
TLG, Christians find it equally distressing that society has abandoned God to the point that people try to prevent God’s Laws from being exercised on the grounds of Human Rights. Christians would suggest that given God created man, man shouldn’t be legislating what God can & can’t legislate…
Huh? What are you talking about? Are you saying that you’re in favor of a theocracy (“…man shouldn’t be legislating what God can and can’t legislate”)?
December 9th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“Christians would suggest that given God created man, man shouldn’t be legislating what God can & can’t legislate…”
Empirically prove that a) God created man and that b) God legislated what you say he legislated and then I’ll listen. Otherwise, I’ll continue watching, “The Witches of Eastwick,” which isn’t very good, but which is still better than anything else on at this time.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at DaveG. Are you suggesting that you must be able to “empirically” prove something to feel justified in believing it? Or simply that a certain level of empirical proof is necessary to justify legislating something?
December 9th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Hehe, I’ve set up a firestorm here. I won’t bother to prove that God created man, as I wouldn’t be able to prove to your satisfaction (we both know that). Just accept that its something that it is possible to believe, and that many do (Huckabee, even
)
Re that God legislated regarding homosexuality, if God wrote the Bible (and I grant you that that is also a matter of faith, although backed by evidence to the satisfaction of the inidividual) then the Bible is God’s instructions to us, as to how he wants us to live.
The Bible is clear in its rejection of homosexuality. A few quotes I woudl direct you to: Romans 1v27 and I Corinthians 6v9-10.
TLG (#16) I’m in favor of a theocracy, but not one set up by mankind (that would defeat the purpose!). I believe God will set up a kingdom ruled by Christ at some point in the future (in the Bible, “the kingdom of God” is a common hope. e.g. Isaiah 2v1-4, Daniel 2v44)
Until he does, we’re stuck with human rulers, of various abilities & morals…
December 9th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I have remarked about three times in this thread that the Bible is clear in its rejection of homosexuality.
I don’t believe in the Bible.
Should you get to tell me that I’m not allowed to have rights with the person that I love in the same way that you do because I don’t adhere to your faith?
December 9th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I must confess that I find this post a bit confusing. Homosexuality is a sin — just like adultery, murder, theft, etc. The ancient Hebrews delivered the concept of sin to the world so I guess they get to define it. Your argument is, I believe, with the concept of sin. To postulate that sin is a fanciful man-made construct that should have no bearing on our modern sensibilities is a perfectly fine belief.
Some number of years ago I discovered I am one of the worst sinners. Happily, I also discovered the solution for this sin.
I just wish candidates (including the ones I support) would have the integrity to tell us that they reject religion rather than reinvent to fit personal preferences.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
TLG says, Should you get to tell me that I’m not allowed to have rights with the person that I love in the same way that you do because I don’t adhere to your faith?
That depends on whether my faith is true. If its false, then you have nothing to worry about. If its true, then when (if) the kingdom of God comes those who have done wrong in the past will be educated in the ways of God.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
JayPe,
That really scares me.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
LJ, what scares you?
December 9th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
JayPe — No, if it’s false (it is), then your idiotic delusion kept me from living the most fulfilling life that I could have — even if not regarding the government, your religion’s disgusting anti-homosexual social norms make things more difficult for me and people like me on a daily basis.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
TLG (#25), it does make life more difficult. That works two ways of course, because Christians (of the kind who believe the Bible is totally literally true, including its less convenient commands) find it difficult to live in a world filled with people breaking God’s commands.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
TLG, you are exactly right in #20. The Hebrew Bible defined sin. One must reject the Bible to reject sin. You clearly have more intellectual coherence than Mayor Giuliani (my candidate) demonstrated this morning.
Alas, intellectual coherence is not a prereq for the presidency. But Rudy is still my guy.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Except that Christians are working off of faith and they can’t validate any of their beliefs with evidence. You’re operating based on faith, which means belief without evidence. That is the denotation of ‘faith.’
Are you one of those people that believes that people choose to be homosexual?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Re ## 11 and 12
NIH said that it could not condone the “unjustified leap to the conclusion that there is a genetic predisposition to crime.”
December 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Agreed Gary.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Gary, #27 good point.
It is sad that a lot of Presidential candidates cling to the Bible (in a token way) in order to advance their candidacy. Most of them certainly don’t live by it. Compassion to all (including illegal immigrants)? Live with the wife of your youth i.e. don’t remarry? don’t lie, let your yes be yes & no no (even when talking about tricky political issues like Iraq, abortion & past beliefs)?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
27 — Right. It makes me angry to see liberal Christians and atheists in pro-gay groups flail around, trying to justify homosexuality from a Biblical standpoint. It’s not possible. The Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, clearly condemns homosexuality as a sin. You have to reject the Bible. We need to start being honest as a society and move past faith as a proper course of decision-making. There is no area of professional life in which ‘faith’ is an acceptable method of determining anything. People tend to hate belief without evidence, really. People who believe in things based on faith are found all around us: they’re called conspiracy theorists. Only when it’s part of an old custom that guarantees us a spot in the afterlife do people think it’s honorable.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
28 was replying to 26, by the way.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Matthew:
Admittedly, I was being a little bit smart with Jay, who seems to be talking more about personal morality than legislation, especially given his #19. If someone claimed that civil law or the Constitution should be subject to the Bible or ancient Jewish law, well, then we’d have a problem here. While I don’t think there’s anyone on this site that would claim that, I’m sure you could find some folks at Free Republic who would gladly make that claim!
As far as empiricism goes, I think public policy decisions should basically be made empirically. I’ve long thought that you should start with the principle of the primacy of the individual and work from there. The reason I’m not a Libertarian is that, IMO, Libertarians start and stop with individual rights, which doesn’t work out when you have to tax people to build roads and schools and things. So you have to confiscate property to some extent in order to have a functioning society. But in general, I think individual rights should be the basis for society and when there’s a problem, government should act pragmatically, but always empirically.
Incidentally, as far as religion goes, of course none can be proven empirically, though that doesn’t mean none are true. If something can’t be proven one way or the other, I stay open minded, but when a religious claim seems to contradict facts or science or logic or observation, I’ll go with the latter. As I often say, I consider my religion to be a search for truth, and if God is real, he can’t be offended by that, because God is truth, and God can’t be offended by a search for him.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
JayPe — 31 — You don’t possibly intend to insinuate that mankind is fallible, do you?
From a secular perspective, it’s easy to speak of why things like adultery are immoral. However, secular people don’t hold candidates to unrealistically high expectations and they don’t let their moral impulses get muddled with what the job of the presidency actually entails!
December 9th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Homosexuality is an inferior manner of long-term relationship. It aids society in no discernible way.
So society has no moral burden to accept it or to treat it as equal to heterosexual relationships which sustain society.
The question of whether it is sin is a personal question. It is certainly worthless and self-destructive however overeating and driving without a seat belt also have no redeeming quality and are self-destructive.
I think homosexual behavior ought to be legal like other self destructive acts. However I see no need to treat a worthless type of purely sexual behavior as worthwhile which real marriages between a man and woman are.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
The reason I’m not a Libertarian is that, IMO, Libertarians start and stop with individual rights, which doesn’t work out when you have to tax people to build roads and schools and things. So you have to confiscate property to some extent in order to have a functioning society.
Are you suggesting that people are inherently owed roads and schools? You cannot empirically prove that. Only voluntary taxation is appropriate in such an instance. Make your case to people that schools and roads are necessary. There’s a good case. People will pay. But force is never acceptable. No one is owed roads or an education.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
““The way somebody leads their life isn’t sinful. It’s the acts,—
Eh…Can you lead a homosexual lifestyle without commiting Homosexual acts?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
This post is the reason Rudy will never win over SoCons…Homosexuality is a choice…Science shows that it obviously is…DaveG…Come on dude…That was an amazingly dumb statement to say that science says that Homosexuality is anything other than a choice…It is as simple as reproduction…Hetersexuals can…Homos can’t…Science has spoken…IT is sinful and there is room to talk about it…I’d prefer not to have someone who is a “flight risk” for adultry on the job…
December 9th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
TLG (#28) I’m not sure if people choose to be homosexual or not. I do know what the Bible says though, and it is very clear. As far as evidence for the Bible, there is evidence (prophecies, consistency with history, forward looking hygience laws well beyond the knowledge of the time) which suggest a divine author.
If that is true (and yes, you and many others don’t believe it) then personally I would prefer to believe it & obey it, rather than the tokenism you get from politicians using it hypocritically as a way to win votes.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
TLG, we will have to agree to disagree on the evidentiary grounds for the claims of the Bible. I have found sin to be a very useful way to define my nature.
That said, I think we can both agree that it would be useful to have those people who don’t believe the claims of the Bible to have the integrity to reject them when given a good opportunity to do so on national T.V. I think that was what DaveG was trying to do with this provocative and thoughtful post.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
TLG: “Are you suggesting that people are inherently owed roads and schools? You cannot empirically prove that. “
Are you suggesting people inherently are owed rights? You can not empirically prove that.
Empirical proof is irrelevant to values because no normative concept can be proven. It is like proving “Shut the door”. You can not prove a command whether moral or personal.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“Homosexuality is a choice…Science shows that it obviously is…DaveG”
Umm… no offense, but why does Rett get to post on the front page with idiotic statements like that.
It’s OBVIOUSLY a choice, Rett? You won’t even allow for a “we can’t prove it to be so or not so” but obviously it’s a choice?
Huckabee IS the perfect candidate for you.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Gary:
I see what you’re getting at. In the post, I was using sin interchangeably with morality, though the two aren’t the same. Morality can emanate from many frameworks, theistic or atheistic, religious or secular. Sin is a distinctly religious concept. If sin is technically defined as the violation of the ancient Hebrew Law, then no, neither Rudy nor I nor anyone else gets to redefine it. And I suspect what Rudy probably means is that his moral code is not the same as that underlying the ancient Hebrew Law and thus he doesn’t find homosexuality immoral. But for Rudy to say that would be to open the door to even more theological questions when I suspect that Rudy would prefer as few theological questions as possible!
Incidentally, this thread is a pretty good piece of evidence that religion and politics don’t mix and should be kept fairly separate.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
TLG (#28) I’m not sure if people choose to be homosexual or not. I do know what the Bible says though, and it is very clear. As far as evidence for the Bible, there is evidence (prophecies, consistency with history, forward looking hygience laws well beyond the knowledge of the time) which suggest a divine author.
Ooh, prophecies confirmed in the New Testament (in the Bible) that were predicted in the old! Ooh-hoo-hoo! What was I thinking? Consistency with history? Like Pi being 3.1?
Anyway, it’s not a choice, okay? Can you take my word for it?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Are you suggesting people inherently are owed rights? You can not empirically prove that. Empirical proof is irrelevant to values because no normative concept can be proven. It is like proving “Shut the doorâ€. You can not prove a command whether moral or personal.
Yes, people are inherently owed rights. That’s actually rather redundant: a right is something that we are inherently owed. That is to say: Nothing, really, except protection against the use of force, which cannot be objectively proven as appropriate. Therefore, government exists to protect us against the use of force. That’s all that can be empirically proven. That’s all that government should exist for.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
TLG, if homosexual sex is not a choice then it’s rape. Sex must be voluntary to not be rape.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
DaveG:
Exactly right. Morality (absent religion) is redefined every day. As more and more folks come to believe in man-made global warming my fondness for BBQ is likely to be seen increasingly immoral. As more and more people commit adultery, the opprobrium ascribed to doing so becomes less immoral.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
This post is the reason Rudy will never win over SoCons…Homosexuality is a choice…Science shows that it obviously is…DaveG…Come on dude…That was an amazingly dumb statement to say that science says that Homosexuality is anything other than a choice…It is as simple as reproduction…Hetersexuals can…Homos can’t…Science has spoken…IT is sinful and there is room to talk about it…I’d prefer not to have someone who is a “flight risk†for adultry on the job…
Rett’s a clown, just like his Jester King, the Huckster.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
TLG, if homosexual sex is not a choice then it’s rape. Sex must be voluntary to not be rape.
Huh? That was the stupidest non-sequitur I’ve ever heard.
Homosexuality is not a choice.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Rett, could you choose to be homosexual? Could you be sexually attracted to men if you wanted to be?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
DaveG: religion & politics don’t mix very well
This is why the GOP is struggling between the fiscal conservative tough on crime wing (Rudy), the libertarian wing (Paul, kind of) & the social conservative wing (Mitt & Mike).
December 9th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
JayPe,
Maybe so but even Mitt in his most shameful hour of pandering to the kooks wouldn’t say that homosexuality is OBVIOUSLY a choice.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
TLG, nothing can be proven as appropriate.
We must make an assumption about what is appropriate to prove what falls under that tent.
It’s obvious you really don’t understand what you’re saying. Nothing normative can be empirically proven.
It’s hilarious that an atheist wants to do away with God but get to keep the idea of moral objectivity which can not exist without an outside moral reference greater than mankind.
You can not show why using force against you is any different than using force against any other animal. It is simply nature. Animals kill each other in nature all the time.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
TLG, we will have to agree to disagree on the evidentiary grounds for the claims of the Bible. I have found sin to be a very useful way to define my nature. – Gary
I don’t really care, inasmuch as you’re not trying to impose it on me.
However, people with IQ’s twenty-nine standard deviations below the average — such as Rett — that vote in enormous numbers are, which is why I fight religion.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
DaveG,
I tend to have difficulty with the argument that laws should be based on empiricism largely because I don’t think anything meaningful is flatly derivable, without some sort of interference of philosophy or natural law. You can say we shouldn’t murder, because we’re violating someone’s rights. But, where did you get the idea they had rights? You can say humans have rights, because they can reason. But, where did you get the idea “reason” was more morally worthwhile then “flippers” or “wings”? That’s not to say you can’t make more and less plausible cases for some of these principles, but I think eventually you hit the wall of natural law, and a first principle which you must simply accept.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
TLG, nothing can be proven as appropriate. We must make an assumption about what is appropriate to prove what falls under that tent. It’s obvious you really don’t understand what you’re saying. Nothing normative can be empirically proven. It’s hilarious that an atheist wants to do away with God but get to keep the idea of moral objectivity which can not exist without an outside moral reference greater than mankind. You can not show why using force against you is any different than using force against any other animal. It is simply nature. Animals kill each other in nature all the time.
I think you’re misunderstanding me, or trying to lump me in completely with Ayn Rand. Here –
There is no objective morality. There is, however, objective immorality: any initiation of force, because it cannot be objectively proven as justifiable.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with “philosophy,” but people whose reading list extends beyond the Old and New Testaments have come up with very intriguing methods of determining morality and proper governance.
Animals are irrational; men have the capacity to reason.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
TLG, why is it relevant whether homosexuality is a choice?
We don’t let kleptomaniacs off because it’s not a choice. We don’t like psychopaths of because they instinctively kill.
Choice is really a fanciful notion anyway. Everything we do is influenced by something else.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“Ooh, prophecies confirmed in the New Testament (in the Bible) that were predicted in the old! Ooh-hoo-hoo! What was I thinking? Consistency with history? Like Pi being 3.1?”
TLG, where’s the Bible text about Pi being 3.1? Awakened constantly badgered me about this and never gave me the text- I even looked up Pi in the concordance and found absolutely no reference to Pi. Now maybe something in the Bible says implies some truth about Pi, but I’ve missed it in the times I’ve read through the Bible. So please give me the chapter and verse where a reference to Pi is found.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
” (unlike animals) men have the capacity to reason.” (TLG, #57)
You agree with the Bible!
I acknowledge that you don’t agree with everything else in the Bible
December 9th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
ECG,
“We don’t let kleptomaniacs off because it’s not a choice. We don’t like psychopaths of because they instinctively kill.”
Aren’t kleptomaniacs a nuisance to society? Aren’t psychopaths harmful to others? What the hell do you care if two consenting adults want to engage in gay sex?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
TLG,
I find your epithet against Rett to be mean-spirited. But I predicate that on a 5,000 year-old superstition spawned by a nomadic desert tribe.. If most people here believe it is o.k, then there is no moral problem with what you said or with the hate you feel toward those who believe in objective morality so you have nothing to worry about.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
egs (#58) exactly. However, Christians should accept that morality is not going to be solved by government (which is run by humans who use morality hypocritically to get elected, hardly moral behaviour!) and wait for God to fix things up when Christ returns.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
A lot of men who argue vociferously against homosexuality and pedophilia are themselves homosexual and pedophiles. At least that seems to be the case among conservatives such as Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Haggard, etc. Quite sad actually.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Adam (#61) the choice argument is valid if talking about sin & individuals, its not valid if talking about human rights. So egs comparison of homosexuality to kleptomania is right from a Christian viewpoint, but not right from a libertarian viewpoint.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
TLG: “There is no objective morality. There is, however, objective immorality: any initiation of force, because it cannot be objectively proven as justifiable.”
Guys look at this. TLG admits he’s an illogical person. Immorality is that which is outside the moral norms. There can be no immorality with morality. Nothing can be objectively proven as justified so everything should be immoral to TLG.
“Animals are irrational; men have the capacity to reason.”
That’s a funny statement because many primates are more rational than men according to dozens of evolutionary studies over behavior and incentives.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
TLG, why is it relevant whether homosexuality is a choice? We don’t let kleptomaniacs off because it’s not a choice. We don’t like psychopaths of because they instinctively kill. Choice is really a fanciful notion anyway. Everything we do is influenced by something else.
It’s always cute when you Christians claim that you’re so compassionate and then go on to compare gay sex to murder. And, yes, you are comparing them. You are not just illustrating a principle, because the principle isn’t consistent. Homosexuality harms no one and consensual, loving gay relationships bring great, rational happiness to millions of people. Murder is the imposition of force and the removal of rights.
The issue of whether it’s a choice is completely relevant because if you admit that it’s not a choice, it destroys the entire Biblical foundation for arguing against homosexuality.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
“The issue of whether it’s a choice is completely relevant because if you admit that it’s not a choice, it destroys the entire Biblical foundation for arguing against homosexuality.”
How?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Adam I don’t care if homosexuals wish to defile themselves. That hurts no one. However the government ought not to promote behavior that is worthless to the rest of society by inventing homosexual marriage.
Homosexual relationships have no redeeming quality that justifies giving them the benefits of real families.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
TLG, I find your epithet against Rett to be mean-spirited. But I predicate that on a 5,000 year-old superstition spawned by a nomadic desert tribe.. If most people here believe it is o.k, then there is no moral problem with what you said or with the hate you feel toward those who believe in objective morality so you have nothing to worry about.
It is mean-spirited. And he is stupid. I don’t care if it’s mean. It’s true.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I don’t think Homosexual tendencies are a choice. I doubt very many people would care to become homosexual – it wouldn’t really make sense. However, I do think having sex is a choice, and I would think most all of you would agree with that. I mean how can you be a libertarian if you don’t believe in choice. People who have heterosexual tendecies can choose to be abstinent and so can people with homosexual tendecies.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Adam I don’t care if homosexuals wish to defile themselves. That hurts no one. However the government ought not to promote behavior that is worthless to the rest of society by inventing homosexual marriage. Homosexual relationships have no redeeming quality that justifies giving them the benefits of real families.
Can you please tell me what is “defiling” about a loving same-sex relationship based on shared values and trust? Can you please tell me what’s “fake” about a relationship built upon such things?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I don’t think Homosexual tendencies are a choice. I doubt very many people would care to become homosexual – it wouldn’t really make sense. However, I do think having sex is a choice, and I would think most all of you would agree with that. I mean how can you be a libertarian if you don’t believe in choice. People who have heterosexual tendecies can choose to be abstinent and so can people with homosexual tendecies.
Yeah, um, the thing is: there’s no reason for homosexuals to be abstinent.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
The Bible makes clear sin is not a choice. It’s a way of life that all men are born into. In that manner homosexuality is as unremarkable as stealing, jealousy or lying. It’s just that those sins are universal.
Everyone has been jealous, stole or lied. Only a minority have decided to engage in sodomy or lewd acts.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Guys look at this. TLG admits he’s an illogical person. Immorality is that which is outside the moral norms. There can be no immorality with morality. Nothing can be objectively proven as justified so everything should be immoral to TLG. – egs
Immorality is that which is not permissible from an objective standpoint.
I would argue that objective immorality contrasts with objective moral neutrality.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
“and consensual, loving gay relationships bring great, rational happiness” Rational happiness?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
The Bible makes clear sin is not a choice. It’s a way of life that all men are born into. In that manner homosexuality is as unremarkable as stealing, jealousy or lying. It’s just that those sins are universal. Everyone has been jealous, stole or lied. Only a minority have decided to engage in sodomy or lewd acts.
What’s your point?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Rational happiness?
Yes. Why is it irrational that two men or two women, bonded together by shared values, intimacy, and trust, find happiness in each other?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
“Everyone has been jealous, stole or lied. Only a minority have decided to engage in sodomy or lewd acts.”
egs, this isn’t true. The Bible DOES make clear sin is a choice & that men are born into a sinful way of life, but this sentence isn’t right. It would be more true to say that Everyone has sinned, in many different ways, including homosexuality, stealing, etc.
TLG doesn’t think homosexuality is wrong, because he doens’t believe the Bible. But a Bible-believe shouldn’t commit homosexual acts in the same way that they shouldn’t steal or lie, etc. Its wrong. Its sinful.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
EGS,
But what causes them to be “defiling themselves”? And even if it is worthless to the rest of society why should that prohibit the people who think it’s quite valuable for enjoying it? Especially if they’re not hurting anyone in the process?
If homosexual relationships don’t have any redeeming quality then why should you or anyone care about getting benefits that other families receive?
I was born and raised Catholic and I’ve heard the same arguments you’re making. I just don’t buy it.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
TLG doesn’t think homosexuality is wrong, because he doens’t believe the Bible. But a Bible-believe shouldn’t commit homosexual acts in the same way that they shouldn’t steal or lie, etc. Its wrong. Its sinful.
Um, no. If you believe the Bible, then you shouldn’t commit homosexual acts. I don’t believe the Bible, so don’t jam your delusion down my throat using the force of government.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I just found the phrase kind of funny – generally you don’t equate pure emotion with rationality, of course actually we ought to, but rational happiness just sounded funny. I wasn’t really making a substantive arguement on the claim itsef – the phrase just struck me funny.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
John, good relationships are NOT based upon emotions!
December 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I get this weird feeling that TLG is some 16 year old kid who surfs the web all day…haha…
The bottom line is that cultures that allow homosexuality to run rampant decline and then they fall…
Amazingly…Cultures that maintain Christian Ethic and Standards tend to thrive…
December 9th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
TLG:
“What’s your point”
You said if homosexuality wasn’t a choice that it undermined the Biblical foundation for considering it a sin. That’s obviously wrong since the Bible makes clear that we are all predisposed to sin.
Homosexuality is just a particular example.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
EGS,
“But what causes them to be “defiling themselvesâ€? And even if it is worthless to the rest of society why should that prohibit the people who think it’s quite valuable for enjoying it? Especially if they’re not hurting anyone in the process?”
Who’s talking about prohibiting homosexuality?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
TLG,
“It is mean-spirited. And he is stupid. I don’t care if it’s mean. It’s true.”
Truth is such a bourgeois, antiquated concept, don’t you think?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Weird feeling? You know that I’m 17. (And you also know that my age invalidates all of my arguments, because arguments are won based not upon ideas, but upon who’s older.)
Rett, do you know what a “non-sequitur” is? They don’t talk about them in the Bible. It’s basically akin to saying that since the Earth has warmed since Nancy Pelosi has been Speaker of the House, then Nancy Pelosi causes global warming.
Well, no. Just like Greece and Rome did not fall due to homosexuality. It’s just a coincidence that they were more tolerant of it.
By the way: Spain, Canada, South Africa, and Holland seem to be getting along just fine, despite the fact that the evil Godless Faggots are able to enjoy marriage in the same way that their Good Christian Counterparts are.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
“why should that prohibit…”
Sorry – let’s change it to “Why should we be scornful of”
December 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
You said if homosexuality wasn’t a choice that it undermined the Biblical foundation for considering it a sin. That’s obviously wrong since the Bible makes clear that we are all predisposed to sin. Homosexuality is just a particular example.
So if you acknowledge that homosexuality isn’t a choice, then what you’re saying is that God is a sadist that wants to make some peoples’ lives miserable in order to test their capacity to resist sin? You’re saying that my impulses are a test from God…or something?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Yeah, TLG you missed my point. My point is that I found the phrase Rational happiness to be quite funny. Oh, and relationships aren’t solely based on emotions, but if there are no feelings than you really don’t have that much of a relationship – wer’e not robots or computers.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
TLG (#81) “Um, no. If you believe the Bible, then you shouldn’t commit homosexual acts. I don’t believe the Bible, so don’t jam your delusion down my throat using the force of government.”
I didn’t say that. Read my Post #63 again please…
December 9th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Truth is such a bourgeois, antiquated concept, don’t you think?
Or, as Rett would put it: “…;)…”
December 9th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Yeah, TLG you missed my point. My point is that I found the phrase Rational happiness to be quite funny. Oh, and relationships aren’t solely based on emotions, but if there are no feelings than you really don’t have that much of a relationship – wer’e not robots or computers.
Good, strong relationships create rational emotions: ones that we feel based on reasonable precepts. If I meet someone that shares my values, it is rational for me to feel love for him.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I didn’t say that. Read my Post #63 again please…
Alright, then.
In the meantime, will you stop selectively choosing what parts of the Bible you want to legislate and allow me to get married when I find someone worthy, dammit?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Inbreeding really takes a toll on intelligence. A famous jurist once said, “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.” I just wish we were enforcing that.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
haha…you are 17…haha…wonderful…anyways to the point…The point is that History is History and no matter how you spin it…It happened…Homosexuality is not productive for society, for our culture and as long as I am around I will continue to fight it…As will the majority of this nation will…80% who claim to be Christian…Peace Out
December 9th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Rett, I think TLG, is enjoying this but he’s obviously not willing to examine the double standard where he invents objective immorality out of nothing to describe the one thing that emotional disturbs him.
That thing is to be interfered with. His “leave me alooone” almost screams in each post.
That shows a deeply selfish self-centered personality.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
haha…you are 17…haha…wonderful…anyways to the point…The point is that History is History and no matter how you spin it…It happened…Homosexuality is not productive for society, for our culture and as long as I am around I will continue to fight it…As will the majority of this nation will…80% who claim to be Christian…Peace Out
We’re slaves to society!
Yeah, Huckabee is definitely your man.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Rett, I think TLG, is enjoying this but he’s obviously not willing to examine the double standard where he invents objective immorality out of nothing to describe the one thing that emotional disturbs him. That thing is to be interfered with. His “leave me alooone†almost screams in each post. That shows a deeply selfish self-centered personality.
I already responded to that. Objective immorality contrasts with objective moral neutrality.
And none of what you said rebuts anything.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
TLG,
“It’s always cute when you Christians claim that you’re so compassionate and then go on to compare gay sex to murder. And, yes, you are comparing them. You are not just illustrating a principle, because the principle isn’t consistent. Homosexuality harms no one and consensual, loving gay relationships bring great, rational happiness to millions of people. Murder is the imposition of force and the removal of rights.”
No offense, but I think you’re missing the point. Choice, in the narrow sense that homosexual acts could be considered not choices, doesn’t work in sense that you’re trying to make it work. You’re throwing up red-herrings. Being genetically predisposed to certain types of behavior doesn’t, in any other context, absolve one of responsibility for that behavior. Imagine three scenarios. 1.) I’m pre-disposed to alcoholism, and in a bender I run over a little girl. Here, I’m nonetheless culpable. 2.) I’m driving along (sober), and a 18 wheeler sideswipes me, and I run into a little girl. I’m no longer culpable. 3.) I have no genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism, but in a bender I run over a little girl. In the first scenario I had a choice, albeit a genetically limited one. In the second, I didn’t. In the third, I had total choice (to the extent that this is possible).
There may be reasons to morally separate scenarios 1 and 3, but they’re identical under the law and ought to be. Now what you’re arguing is something quite different, but you’re camouflaging it in the language of choice. You’re arguing that because homosexual acts don’t “initiate force”, they ought to be considered morally neutral. A plausible, though obviously fairly disputed principle. But, it has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals are naturally inclined towards homosexuality. Presumably, that principle would still apply, even it WAS a choice, in the strictest sense of the word.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
TLG: “So if you acknowledge that homosexuality isn’t a choice, then what you’re saying is that God is a sadist that wants to make some peoples’ lives miserable in order to test their capacity to resist sin? You’re saying that my impulses are a test from God…or something?”
I’m a Calvinist so I’d say no. You’re predisposed to sin because you’re a fallen and depraved individual. You will sin no matter what you try. You may be able to switch sins (ei go from homosexuality to jealousy or pride) but you can’t stop sinning.
If God decides to save some of us then we’ll be aided in stopping sinning but our will is in complete bondage to our depravity. Our actions are only adding logs to the fires of Hell until those God has predestined are saved by Him.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
“In the meantime, will you stop selectively choosing what parts of the Bible you want to legislate and allow me to get married when I find someone worthy, dammit?” On what objective basis does the government owe you an ackowledgement of your gay marriage? On what objective basis does the government owe anybody recognition of their marriage? You can go ahead and have a ceremony and call it marriage and for all I’m concerned its not so much the Government that make it legitmate but’s its God. So for all I can tell you’re allowed to get “married” if thats what you want to call it, though to a lot of us it isn’t marriage whatever the government says. So you’re not really being prohibited from doing anything in not getting marriage – therefore what is the objective reason for the government to recognize your marriage?
December 9th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
why did rudy say this? why would he say that the act of homosexuality is a sin? i don’t see how this helps him in anyway, and he easily could have clintoned the question, and given no answer.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
I’m a Calvinist so I’d say no. You’re predisposed to sin because you’re a fallen and depraved individual. You will sin no matter what you try. You may be able to switch sins (ei go from homosexuality to jealousy or pride) but you can’t stop sinning. If God decides to save some of us then we’ll be aided in stopping sinning but our will is in complete bondage to our depravity. Our actions are only adding logs to the fires of Hell until those God has predestined are saved by Him.
You’re a lunatic.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
On what objective basis does the government owe you an ackowledgement of your gay marriage? On what objective basis does the government owe anybody recognition of their marriage? You can go ahead and have a ceremony and call it marriage and for all I’m concerned its not so much the Government that make it legitmate but’s its God. So for all I can tell you’re allowed to get “married†if thats what you want to call it, though to a lot of us it isn’t marriage whatever the government says. So you’re not really being prohibited from doing anything in not getting marriage – therefore what is the objective reason for the government to recognize your marriage?
I completely agree. But the government needs to set up a separate record-keeping institution, then. Marriage is a package-deal, and the only way to access many rights that are legitimate functions of government. If the government is going to involve itself in marriage, then it needs to do so in a fair and equal manner.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
TLG: “I already responded to that. Objective immorality contrasts with objective moral neutrality.
And none of what you said rebuts anything.”
I’m going to wait until you actually prove something to rebut it. So far you’ve said there’s something called objective immorality but always come back to your invented belief that we need to only justify acts that require force and call that objective.
I certainly haven’t seen you prove that and it’s not self evident or I would have already agreed to it.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
No offense, but I think you’re missing the point. Choice, in the narrow sense that homosexual acts could be considered not choices, doesn’t work in sense that you’re trying to make it work. You’re throwing up red-herrings. Being genetically predisposed to certain types of behavior doesn’t, in any other context, absolve one of responsibility for that behavior. Imagine three scenarios. 1.) I’m pre-disposed to alcoholism, and in a bender I run over a little girl. Here, I’m nonetheless culpable. 2.) I’m driving along (sober), and a 18 wheeler sideswipes me, and I run into a little girl. I’m no longer culpable. 3.) I have no genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism, but in a bender I run over a little girl. In the first scenario I had a choice, albeit a genetically limited one. In the second, I didn’t. In the third, I had total choice (to the extent that this is possible). There may be reasons to morally separate scenarios 1 and 3, but they’re identical under the law and ought to be. Now what you’re arguing is something quite different, but you’re camouflaging it in the language of choice. You’re arguing that because homosexual acts don’t “initiate forceâ€, they ought to be considered morally neutral. A plausible, though obviously fairly disputed principle. But, it has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals are naturally inclined towards homosexuality. Presumably, that principle would still apply, even it WAS a choice, in the strictest sense of the word.
What “responsibility” is there to take for homosexual sex? There’s nothing wrong with it except in Christians’ silly, prudish emotional reactions. That’s what I’m trying to get at: nothing harmful comes from homosexual sex. It’s sex for pleasure. That’s it. Heterosexuals do that all the time.
Ah, but heterosexuals can reproduce! Well, okay. That’s fair. But unless these idiots are about to argue that the government should ban masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex, as well as all fetish play — in addition to banning marriage between infertile and elderly couples — then there’s really no valid chain of logic in what they’re arguing.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I’m going to wait until you actually prove something to rebut it. So far you’ve said there’s something called objective immorality but always come back to your invented belief that we need to only justify acts that require force and call that objective. I certainly haven’t seen you prove that and it’s not self evident or I would have already agreed to it.
Well, it’s certainly not self-evident to a person that’s chosen to take the easy way out of determining morality: accepting the religion that you just so happen to have been born into as a piece of dogma.
You act as if the burden of proof is on me to disprove your faith, and that in the meantime, your faith’s principles should be the crux of governmental policy.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
TLG: “You’re a lunatic.”
I’m not going to trade insults with a child. Grow up and refrain from name calling. It’s a sign of emotional immaturity you may want to avoid.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Ah, but heterosexuals can reproduce! Well, okay. That’s fair. But unless these idiots are about to argue that the government should ban masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex, as well as all fetish play — in addition to banning marriage between infertile and elderly couples — then there’s really no valid chain of logic in what they’re arguing. — Me
Or at least calling all of these things immoral, rather.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I’m not going to trade insults with a child. Grow up and refrain from name calling. It’s a sign of emotional immaturity you may want to avoid.
Surely you can see how, from my perspective, statements like “our actions are only adding logs to the fires of Hell until those God has predestined are saved by Him” cause me to believe that I’m dealing with a deluded person. I’m not going to apologize for that.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
EGS it seems to me that if God was the kind of God you describe, than any honorable person would fight him to the death. I wish you would keep your calvinist theology to yourself, it makes God look to be the most absolute cruel tryant there is. The Bible implies that we have choice, thats why we are called to go and spread the gospel. If God was a God who predestined people to burn forever and ever in eternal hellfire I really don’t know how anybody could love such a God and maintain their integrity. Also eternal hellfire isn’t Biblical, its derived mythology, the forever in the bible means for an age, this is what the greek word meant, even if you don’t know Greek you can test that out by looking at all the times the Bible uses the word forever when it obviously wasn’t talking about an eternity. The doctrine of Hellfire is a doctrine straight from the devil made to frame God as being a more hideous devil than Hitler by a million times. And to say we don’t have choice makes it only worse.
EGS, I generally have great respect for you and wouldn’t normally attack your religous beliefs, but when I find a belief so abhorrent I can’t stand by and watch God’s character get blackened by lies. And I’m not accusing you of lying. I do however encourage you to study the Bible with an open heart, opened to the Holy Spirit’s leading on this topic. Don’t just take what the theologians of your church say for granted, study the Bible yourself, and see if forever always means eternal, and try to match it up with where the Bible says the wicked die. Also pray about your belief regarding predestination.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
“It seems to me that if God was the kind of God you describe, then any honorable person would fight him to the death.”
In other words: “You’re a lunatic.”
December 9th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
John, I studied the Bible and these beliefs hold me. Romans 8:29-30
“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
John I don’t want to offend you because I know these doctrines are odious to those who think man contains an ability to choose not to sin. I simply respect the sovereignty of God and think we have earned any punishment we receive. God has mercy on who he will have mercy as the Bible says.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
“I completely agree. But the government needs to set up a separate record-keeping institution, then. Marriage is a package-deal, and the only way to access many rights that are legitimate functions of government. If the government is going to involve itself in marriage, then it needs to do so in a fair and equal manner.”
If you could setup some kind of package deal for couples that had the rights that are legitamate functions of government and extended those rights to any two people – such that government could turn a blind eye towards whether it was a gay couple I would be okay with that. I think the governement should nuetral on the issue of homosexuality. With gay marriage that government has stepped out from nuetral into positive. I don’t have a need for the governement to condemn what your doing, I just don’t think its proper for the government to sanction with the word marriage.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Oh, great. Calvinism vs. Arminianism. That’s why I come to Race 4 2008…
December 9th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
TLG,
“What “responsibility†is there to take for homosexual sex? There’s nothing wrong with it except in Christians’ silly, prudish emotional reactions. That’s what I’m trying to get at: nothing harmful comes from homosexual sex. It’s sex for pleasure. That’s it. Heterosexuals do that all the time.
Ah, but heterosexuals can reproduce! Well, okay. That’s fair. But unless these idiots are about to argue that the government should ban masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex, as well as all fetish play — in addition to banning marriage between infertile and elderly couples — then there’s really no valid chain of logic in what they’re arguing.”
This is such a muddle, I’m not sure where to start. Here goes. I used the responsibility term in a fairly narrow sense. If a man with a sexually transmitted disease has sex with a woman, and he does so without informing her, he can be held responsible for his actions. It’s no use him screaming “but I’ve got a genetic predisposition to have sex with women. I had no choice”. They’ll laugh him out of the court room. Similarly, a homosexual, just like a heterosexual, has responsibility for their sexual acts in that narrow sense; i.e, they willing engaged in those acts. You’re conflating two types of choice.
The possibility that homosexuality isn’t a choice in this narrow sense (i.e, you’re naturally pre-disposed towards it), is quite separate from it’s morality. The two questions have nothing to do with each other, but they’re presented together as a means of preying on illogical people.
To respond to the second part of the post, I’ll simply say that no one wants to ban homosexual conduct (which is the only thing your allusions to masturbation are pertinent to). And as far as I can tell, the state isn’t granting a package of rights to relationships specifically based upon masturbation.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Gary, I’ll shut up about that it’s a waste of time to even mention it here in addition to be offensive to the rest of you.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Matthew E. Miller, see my #111 for clarification on the second part of that. I was afraid someone would miss that.
I’m really not getting the point of your first part. I’m just saying that consensual homosexual sex isn’t immoral because it’s not a forceful act. Where the hell are you bringing in these STD comparisons from? Homosexual sex is morally neutral, just like heterosexual sex.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Look, I’m pretty indifferent on same-sex marriage, though I lean towards opposing it. It’s not an issue I grant any weight when voting. But, I think it’s unbearably silly to say that the government simply “has” to allow homosexuals to marry, as a matter of fairness and basic rights.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I just like to ask people whether they think it’s a choice because if it’s not out of curiosity. Also: a lot of people think that gays’ relationships are illegitimate because they “reject” heterosexuality or willfully act against their “natural” “heterosexual impulses,” or choose to change them. It just helps me in knowing whether I’m dealing with an idiot or a “reasonable” Christian.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Econ,
I took no offense. I just don’t see a lot of usefulness in dismembering the Arminian heresy on a blog dedicated to the 2008 election.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Its far from silly. I think the Supreme Court will eventually strike down laws banning same sex marriage, and probably within a decade or less. Its just a matter of getting the issue before the court.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Look, I’m pretty indifferent on same-sex marriage, though I lean towards opposing it. It’s not an issue I grant any weight when voting. But, I think it’s unbearably silly to say that the government simply “has†to allow homosexuals to marry, as a matter of fairness and basic rights.
If the government is going to allow certain inheritance and record-keeping benefits to only be available through marriage, which is exclusive to heterosexuals and gays that want to pretend that they’re heterosexual, then no, I would not call that “fair” by any stretch of the imagination.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Feltcher, only if the Democrats win this election. I, for one, am hoping the Supreme Court allows people to be sovereign in instances where the text of the Constitution is silent — whether I agree with the majority or not.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
So returning to the race 4 2008, do we think Rudy’s statements are:
a) a daft reflection of his desire to not get offside with the christian base, while leaving himself wriggle room in the General, OR
b) an insightful social commentary on homosexuality?
I go with the former…
December 9th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
What do you have to say about 2nd Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” If God wants us to come to repentance than why would he damn us to destruction? As to the text you quote – you will notice that it only mentions predestination in one direction that of being saved. It is interesting it doesn’t damn people to destruction. What this can be taken to mean is that God has predestined all to salvation – in other words its God’s plan for all of us. However, some reject God’s predestination. The whole conflict between good and evil doesn’t really make sense in the context of predestination. If we don’t have choice than why wouldn’t a loving God just predestine us to all have a happy life in heaven. The reason there is sin is becasue God valued choice more than the safety no choice would bring.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Matthew:
Awesome! You’ve given me a way to steer this conversation away from theological debate (which, as Gary correctly states, probably shouldn’t be going on at Race42008), and back towards public policy.
You said: “And as far as I can tell, the state isn’t granting a package of rights to relationships specifically based upon masturbation.” I take it that you would be opposed to domestic partnership benefits or civil unions. I’m curious to hear your response to my case for civil unions.
I start with the realization, through observation, that there are millions of Americans who are gay. That is to say, they’re just like you and me, except they are attracted to members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. As we’ve seen from experience, one of the best ways to encourage social stability is to encourage monogamy. This prevents endless and lifelong sexual promiscuity, which, when taken to the extreme, actually does harm the public health by yielding lots of nasty diseases being spread to and fro. Wouldn’t we be better off giving gay couples who choose to live in committed relationships the same perks, benefits, and legal protections that we give straight couples? In so doing, we would go from a society in which Larry Craig is looking for action in a public restroom into one in which the Larry Craigs of the world go home at night to the same partner.
It’s not as if the gay men and women of America are going to somehow “switch” to being heterosexual if these options aren’t available to them. They’re simply going to live as couples, but without the legal protections that straight monogamous couples enjoy. It seems to me that there are lots of reasons to extend those protections to these gay couples and very few reasons not to do so.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Its far from silly. I think the Supreme Court will eventually strike down laws banning same sex marriage, and probably within a decade or less. Its just a matter of getting the issue before the court.
Gay marriage is not Constitutionally mandated to stand side-by-side with straight marriage. Sexuality has nothing to do with our marriage laws. Any man can marry any woman, right now. A lesbian and a gay man can get married to each other.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Jaype what he said was so ambiguous I think he was just filling the dead air.
Rudy is quite talented at saying nothing and making it appear bold.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
John if you want to talk about the Arminian heresy I’ll ask that we do it somewhere else.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
It’s not as if the gay men and women of America are going to somehow “switch†to being heterosexual if these options aren’t available to them. They’re simply going to live as couples, but without the legal protections that straight monogamous couples enjoy. It seems to me that there are lots of reasons to extend those protections to these gay couples and very few reasons not to do so.
Yep. That’s correct.
God, how I’d have loved to live in a society where people are open to homosexuality and don’t ridicule it at every turn due to fear and ignorance. I just hope it’s easier for the next generation. All of the inner turmoil was so unnecessary and happened only because other people cling to superstition and unfounded social mores.
And signs do look encouraging, thankfully.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I hope Drudge gets slammed for this. But Rudy did get close to calling gay people “sinful.” Verrry close.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
December 9th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
123, So now I’m an Arminian heritic. I got to admit kind of a cool title!
December 9th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
For Rudy fans, C-Span is running an interview with him. Even though I really do not like him, the interview was informative.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
132, Fair enough don’t bring up your heresy and I won’t bring up mine.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
TLG,
“I’m really not getting the point of your first part. I’m just saying that consensual homosexual sex isn’t immoral because it’s not a forceful act.”
Then say that, and leave the “choice” nonsense alone. It’s simply a histrionic ploy to make your listener/reader belief that you’re operating on a higher moral ground, and that to oppose your conception morality, is to oppose freedom itself.
“Where the hell are you bringing in these STD comparisons from? Homosexual sex is morally neutral, just like heterosexual sex.”
Again, there are two ways in which some act could plausibly be “not a choice”. First, it could genuinely be beyond your control. Physically you cannot stop yourself from committing this act. Homosexuality, and heterosexuality for that matter, is nothing like this. We’re not rutting machines, that simply must engage in sexual relations or perish. You’re referring to the second sort of “not a choice”. Here, you’re simply genetically pre-disposed to certain actions. If homosexuality were the first sort of “not a choice”, you’d genuinely be justified in saying it’s morally neutral, simply from that evidence alone. You wouldn’t need the “non-initiation of force” principle you’ve cooked up. But, since homosexuality fits in the other category, we can know absolutely nothing about it’s morality or immorality, without consulting other principles (“non-initiation of force” for instance). My objection was simply that you keep on using this “choice” language improperly for, I suspect, rhetorical effect.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
2008 needs a daily open thread where abortion, religion and homosexuality are off the table.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Good deal John. Really dull headed error on my part to even bring it up here in the first place. No hard feelings John?
December 9th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
TLG on equal legal status for gay marriage #106: But the government needs to set up a separate record-keeping institution, then.
As a libertarian, wouldn’t you also recognize that the state’s involvement in defining marriage is illegitimate other than as a contract enforcement issue? I mean, politicians regularly use marriage as a means of “positive discrimination” in terms of better tax status for the betrothed. Just sayin’…
December 9th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Again, there are two ways in which some act could plausibly be “not a choiceâ€. First, it could genuinely be beyond your control. Physically you cannot stop yourself from committing this act. Homosexuality, and heterosexuality for that matter, is nothing like this. We’re not rutting machines, that simply must engage in sexual relations or perish. You’re referring to the second sort of “not a choiceâ€. Here, you’re simply genetically pre-disposed to certain actions. If homosexuality were the first sort of “not a choiceâ€, you’d genuinely be justified in saying it’s morally neutral, simply from that evidence alone. You wouldn’t need the “non-initiation of force†principle you’ve cooked up. But, since homosexuality fits in the other category, we can know absolutely nothing about it’s morality or immorality, without consulting other principles (â€non-initiation of force†for instance). My objection was simply that you keep on using this “choice†language improperly for, I suspect, rhetorical effect.
I have never once suggested that engaging any any sort of sexual behavior is a choice. But homosexual impulses are not a choice, and to many, the belief that they are plays a large factor in their opposition to homosexual behavior on moral grounds. That’s why I ask that.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
As a libertarian, wouldn’t you also recognize that the state’s involvement in defining marriage is illegitimate other than as a contract enforcement issue? I mean, politicians regularly use marriage as a means of “positive discrimination†in terms of better tax status for the betrothed. Just sayin’…
No, I’ve addressed this.
I oppose government involvement of marriage. However, the government has seized many record-keeping functions and placed them wholly in the realm of marriage. As long as it’s going to do that, then it needs to allow homosexuals to be in on it, too.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
How is the GOP going to balance its socially libertarian supporters with its socially conservative supporters?
At the moment the tactic seems to be: “be socially conservative, and paint the other side as worse on libertarian issues to keep libertarians onside”. Will that always work?
December 9th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
“I start with the realization, through observation, that there are millions of Americans who are gay. That is to say, they’re just like you and me, except they are attracted to members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. As we’ve seen from experience, one of the best ways to encourage social stability is to encourage monogamy. This prevents endless and lifelong sexual promiscuity, which, when taken to the extreme, actually does harm the public health by yielding lots of nasty diseases being spread to and fro. Wouldn’t we be better off giving gay couples who choose to live in committed relationships the same perks, benefits, and legal protections that we give straight couples? In so doing, we would go from a society in which Larry Craig is looking for action in a public restroom into one in which the Larry Craigs of the world go home at night to the same partner.
It’s not as if the gay men and women of America are going to somehow “switch†to being heterosexual if these options aren’t available to them. They’re simply going to live as couples, but without the legal protections that straight monogamous couples enjoy. It seems to me that there are lots of reasons to extend those protections to these gay couples and very few reasons not to do so.”
That’s a fairly good argument, and one I’ve made in the past. Until about 4 months ago, I was firmly in favor of gay marriage, for similar reasons. Then I was firmly in favor of civil unions. Now I’m basically indifferent. But, I don’t object to this sort of argument in favor of civil unions or, to a lesser extent, gay marriage. I do object to arguments that claim we ought to allow gay marriage “to be fair” or because marriage is a “right”; in other words, any sort of argument that supports gay marriage without considering what sort of things we’re trying to promote with marriage.
I find it perfectly reasonable to say that marriage promotes monogamy, that the state has an interest in monogamy (for all the reasons you’ve outlined), and therefore gay unions should be included under that umbrella. But, I also find it reasonable that marriage promotes procreation, that the state has an interest in procreation, and therefore gay unions should be excluded from that umbrella.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
JayPe,
I read this thread (and the 100 before it) and ask the same question.
Well, it’s worked for a quarter century. I hope we can keep the band together for one more reunion tour…
December 9th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Encouraging gay relationships devalues the traditional family in the eyes of the federal government, because it basically says that anyone who wants to live with another person should be given full marraige benefits. Should we give those benefits to a 40-yr old man who lives with his mom?
If Gays want to live together, fine, but the government should not be encouraging them to do so, and it certainly should not be giving financial incentives for it.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
140, No hard feelings. I’m a Sophmore Theology major I tend to be drawn to theological debates like a fly to honey! I don’t hold anything against you, I just just strongly disagree with doctrine of eternal hellfire and double predestination. Unlike some on the board I don’t think of a person as being an idiot because I don’t understand or agree with their beliefs.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
No, I call Rett an idiot because he is one. I’m being facetious in my tone, but he is not an intelligent man.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Well, I really don’t know much about Rett’s intelligence, I do know that I’ve been called an idiot by your type before.
BTW you never responded with a text for that Pi is 3.1 thing. Just like Awakened you spew it off and I never get any explanation.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
There is empirical evidence to refute the idea that homosexuality is an innate problem(ie. in the DNA). There have been numerous studies(unbiased) that have shown that homosexuality is a product of environment, family situation, and can be influenced by some genetic factors.
If it is in the DNA, then there is no choice. The University of Michigan is one example to look at. They did a 50year study of identical twins(same DNA) seperated at birth.
When one was gay there was absolutely no corelation that the other would be gay.
This is not worth fighting over though. Regardless, like others have posted, it doesn’t matter. It is still not a normal function. It was listed as a mental disorder and treated until the 1970s.(the hippies allowed it)
Charles Manson was found to have certain triggers in his brain, yet he is still punished. Pedophiles also exhibit some brain activity which could be linked to DNA, I don’t see anyone defending them.
Which should be done if morality is defined by individuals. Where is the line drawn? What is acceptable?
Homosexuality obviously is not natural or normal(no procreation). If it were we wouldn’t be here.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Here are a couple of other sources:
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
Here are a few quotes (some of them by gay activists):
What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.
Researcher Dean Hamer (1993), for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located a the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Referring to that research, Hamer offered some conclusions regarding genetics and homosexuality.
“We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors…”(Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 82).
“Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever predict who will be gay” (Mitchell, 1995).
Citing the failure of their research, Hamer & Copeland further write,
“The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants” (1994, p. 104).
What’s more interesting is that when Hamer’s study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice et al concluded:
“It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28″ (Rice et al, 1999, p.667).
Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
“The INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behavior….Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.” (Nimmons, 1994, p. 64).
Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states:
“These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain” (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801).
December 9th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
My last comment is awaiting moderation? It won’t allow the links.
Here are a few quotes:
What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.
Researcher Dean Hamer (1993), for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located a the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Referring to that research, Hamer offered some conclusions regarding genetics and homosexuality.
“We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors…”(Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 82).
“Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever predict who will be gay” (Mitchell, 1995).
Citing the failure of their research, Hamer & Copeland further write,
“The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants” (1994, p. 104).
What’s more interesting is that when Hamer’s study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice et al concluded:
“It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28″ (Rice et al, 1999, p.667).
Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
“The INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behavior….Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.” (Nimmons, 1994, p. 64).
Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states:
“These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain” (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801).
December 9th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Re: Why twins might not both be gay.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060726091919.htm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
And
December 9th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Your comparing Arthritis to homosexuality? I don’t see what the article proves. Identical twins have the same DNA. There is no way around that.
The story proves my point:
“The advantage of studying twins is that they start out with the exact same genetic information. Therefore, differences in gene expression are attributable to different environmental factors rather than genetics. Such factors could cause a random genetic mutation or affects how DNA is packaged.”
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Another myth BUSTED.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Or, how about you listen to a homosexual speak rather than cherry-pick quotes and studies?
I
DID
NOT
CHOOSE
TO
BE
GAY.
That is all the proof you need. Are you really going to argue with that fact? Or are you going to call me a liar?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:10 am
I do not wish to call you a liar.
First, the quotes are not cherry picked.
Second, I stated that I did not believe that homosexuality was innate(DNA). I understand that you believe that you had no choice. At some stage you may not have. I can accept that.
Like I also stated before, its not worth arguing over. It really doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t prove anything.
Regardless, even with your feelings, you must understand that it is not normal(no procreation of the species). It is a mutation and is/was treated by qualified persons in counseling.
Even with that said, I believe that we are all in the same boat. No-one is worth less than another, and we all have issues that may not fit the norm.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:00 am
TLG,
You may not choose the urgings, but you choose who to have sex with. No one makes you have sex with anyone.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Homosexuality is obviously a disadvantageous mutation because it decreases the probability that a man’s genetic material will survive. Compared to a heterosexual male, a homosexual has only 1/200th chance of their genetic heritage surviving to the third generation.
If any genetic element caused homosexuality it would have long since gone extinct.
The best evidence points to homosexuality being caused by abnormalities in fetal development, by early childhood relationships with parents and with psychological reactions to the onset of puberty.
I’ve actually read a fair bit on this subject when I wrote an article about the Economics of Sex.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:00 am
I’ve read about it plenty inasmuch as it relates to my life. I never tried to argue that it is genetic — although both of you seem to have implied that I think it is (and I don’t really know) — but it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that it isn’t a choice and that I don’t plan to pretend to be heterosexual, as Jason seems to want me to.
There is nothing inherently harmful about homosexual sex for pleasure just as there is nothing inherently good about heterosexual sex for pleasure — they’re both neutral. I will choose to have sex with the man that I fall in love with, just as you will choose to have sex with the woman that you fall in love with. I don’t know, Jason, what exactly you’re trying to get at, if not that I should either be abstinent for my entire life or pretend to be heterosexual..?
The point, anyway, is that it isn’t a choice and that it cannot be changed. The “why” is irrelevant. The fundamentalist Christian “ex-gay” liars notwithstanding (ironically, two of Exodus’ top men quit the organization upon falling in love with each other). It’s important to note that the organizations never actually claim to be able to change the feelings. The American Psychological Association (you know: real professionals?) heavily recommends against “ex-gay” “therapy” as it could lead to heavy emotional problems.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:02 am
“Second, I stated that I did not believe that homosexuality was innate(DNA). I understand that you believe that you had no choice. At some stage you may not have. I can accept that.” – Michael
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It’s not that I believe that I had no choice.
I had no choice. There’s no “belief” involved here. It’s a fact.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:31 am
You’d think TLG was guilty with the insistence that he didn’t choose to be this way. If he thought homosexuality was fine and good why would he be so adamant in saying he was forced into it. By his perspective it really shouldn’t matter. And yet he has to insist he was forced to be this way by nature or something else besides himself.
Sounds like guilt.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:57 am
I’m going to reecho some earlier points. Why should the government be compelled to grant a certain package of rights to a homosexual couple? It really is the heart of the legal/societal/constitutional issue, and you’re giving it short shrift, TLG. The rights you’re seeking, after all, are marriage, but instead you’re attacking the straw man of forbidding sodomy based entirely on some holier-than-thou attitude based on what you believe is a collection of fairy-tales. Tell us why the government should convey the same rights to a homosexual couple. The rights originally did not arise in the context of “oh, anyone who has a loving bond should get married, then they can be happy together forever!” No, from the beginning it’s had little to do with the sexual/emotional/physical/or any other compatibility of the parents with each other, but rather enforcing certain norms regarding the rearing of children. The vaunted “record-keeping and inheritance functions” aren’t designed primarily for the parent’s convenience, but to ensure the continuation of family legacies. Why? Because it’s proven enormously useful in human societies all around the globe. Marriage exists everywhere. Only in the last few decades has gay marriage even been significantly contemplated. I’ve heard plenty of stories of various ancient civilizations tolerating homosexuality, but none about them allowing marriage. That’s because gay couples cannot have their own children.
Now your immediate response is “well then we should ban infertile couples or the elderly from marrying!” Why? It takes more government energy to prevent such marriages than it’s worth. How would the government know someone’s infertile, or intends not to have children? Actually, in much of the world up to near modern times, infertility was perfectly acceptable grounds for divorce! And, up until recently, the elderly didn’t stick around long enough to become infertile. And, up until recently, more mature widows were extremely unlikely to remarry – only the fertile young would, often to someone in the same clan as a departed spouse (because it’s about family). Why bother to legislate against things that don’t happen, and don’t do much harm if they do anyway? Conversely, why go out of your way to honor a marriage that, by it’s very nature, from the very start, and entirely transparently to all observing, fails to provide even the slightest hint of the benefits the institution was designed to encourage? It’s only more recently, with marriage associated more with love and pleasure of the couple than the good of the society, that this discussion was even possible.
Then you’ll say “why should we care what ‘society’ wants? That’s socialist claptrap!” You should care because marriage was designed by society, for society, and the only reason you want it is because of societal recognition and societal benefits it confers – if there was no society you had to interact with, you wouldn’t bother to get married.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:53 am
You’d think TLG was guilty with the insistence that he didn’t choose to be this way. If he thought homosexuality was fine and good why would he be so adamant in saying he was forced into it. By his perspective it really shouldn’t matter. And yet he has to insist he was forced to be this way by nature or something else besides himself. Sounds like guilt.
Guilt? Again, I repeat: you are a lunatic.
It doesn’t matter; I’m only forced to deal with the issue because people like you can’t think beyond your own limited perspective to see that there are other people with life experiences beyond that of the heterosexual white Christian male’s.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:01 am
PnGrata, it sounds like, from the course of your message, that 1) you’re unaware that gay people can adopt (Yes, really!), 2) you’re living in the 18th century (“until recently, the elderly didn’t live long enough…” — Okay, um, that’s nice? That time is now behind us) and 3) you not only dislike but fear change and progress: who cares about how marriage was originally conceived? TIMES HAVE CHANGED. In the past decades, society has slowly but surely started realizing that gay people are not evil, are not insane, did not choose to be gay and would like to live normal lives like everyone else. As societal progress occurs, sometimes things go back and get rewritten a little — you know, as circumstances merit? We’re not living in the same societal conditions that we did in you so-cons’ favorite year of approximately 1823.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:03 am
By the way —
I don’t want marriage for “societal” benefits, but for very specific legal benefits.
You can give me civil unions with all of the essentials, domestic partnerships — I don’t really care; I’ll hold my own private ceremony, but give me the damn legal benefits that you’re currently seizing exclusively for heterosexuals that have nothing to do with child-rearing.
(By the way — straight people can get married and not have children. The government could do something like invalidate all marriages that don’t produce children within three years. Does that sound like a good idea to you?)
December 10th, 2007 at 8:29 am
TLG,
“No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It’s not that I believe that I had no choice.
I had no choice. There’s no “belief†involved here. It’s a fact.”
There is nothing to substantiate that claim. I purposly cited researchers who financially support LGB lobby groups.
I also said it doesn’t matter. Even if born with the temptation, it doesn’t matter.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:33 am
If it’s only environmental why are their gay animals? Bad father rams? Daddy chimp too busy to spend masculine time with their sons? Overbearing mother chimps? Seagull sexual abuse as a chick?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:52 am
“There is nothing to substantiate that claim. I purposly cited researchers who financially support LGB lobby groups. I also said it doesn’t matter. Even if born with the temptation, it doesn’t matter.”
…Even if you came up with an openly homosexual researcher whose entire family is homosexual that called it a “choice,” it wouldn’t matter! I didn’t have a choice and I am supremely confident that the other homosexuals that I know aren’t lying to me when they say that they had no choice.
I don’t know why you insist on calling me a liar.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:54 am
#169, Is there no environment outside of the four walls of a house? Again, this is an invalid argument. Mutations happen do to all sorts of issues.
People are born with cleff palates and as simease twins. Is that normal too?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:55 am
#170, I have already said, it is very possible that you didn’t have a choice. I said that I can accept that.
It still does not legitamize it.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:58 am
I would like to agree to disagree and move on. I will not mention it any longer. No one benefits from this rhetoric.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:03 am
It’s not “rhetoric.”
It’s me telling you the truth you and you not liking it.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:05 am
And no, homosexuality is not “normal.” So what? Who cares? What is your point? Is anything that isn’t in the majority not only not normal but not right and worthy of ridicule and designation as second-class citizens (in the way you treat them socially and legally)?
December 10th, 2007 at 9:08 am
I do not advocate that you should be treated as a second class citizen. You should be treated with love and dignity, just as everyone else should be treated.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:14 am
#175, That is what is being forced, that homosexuality is “normal.” If those sentiments would go away and responses were similiar to yours, homosexuals would be treated with more respect.
My main issue is with some of the groups who claim to represent homosexuals and some of the events such as the decadence festival and others. Those public displays would be dispicable if they were straight or gay.
This is what people see as “normal homosexual behavior” and they do not advance your cause. I understand that you probably have no say in that as an individual, but this is what people see.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I will say this again, you are not worth less than anyone else, I would treat you as my brother.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:34 am
The problem is that homosexuality has become a political football. Some people have chosen to ignore it and others to lift it up.
I believe neither of those are valid. I respect your right to do whatever you want. And it should be your choice. At the same time, I believe that treatment should be available to those who wish to abandon it.
As far as your choice goes though, a new set of laws should not be created. Even for economic reasons only, it would be disastrous to society as a whole. The courts would be overun. There is already enough divorce, not to mention that the average homosexual has over six hundred partners in his or her lifetime. Yes, I understand you may not be in that category but many are.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Michael — But are you advocating, more or less, punishing me for the actions of a screaming minority of homosexuals? Every gay person I know, myself included, is disgusted with the set that the media makes visible and that puts themselves out there in the “gay pride” parades. You don’t realize this, but most gay people are completely indistinguishable from the general population, because there’s nothing abnormal about them. It’s only the ones that choose to flaunt it that are visible, and that’s why gays are perceived as being so radically “different” from the rest of society.
Don’t listen to the groups that claim to represent homosexuals. Most gay people dislike the Gay Pride set. You wouldn’t know this, of course, because you probably don’t know any actual gay people and your perceptions of them are entirely shaped by the media. There are millions of gay men out there just like me that you’d have no idea were gay unless they told you.
I know that what you’re talking about is “what people see” — it’s your job as a rational person to look past that and to take the word of individuals such as myself and not what the Bravo channel tells you on “Queer Eye for the STraight Guy.”
December 10th, 2007 at 9:42 am
I work with three homosexuals, and they do not act that way either. I’m not saying that I believe that is how gays are. I’m telling you that most people on the street see it that way.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:43 am
As far as your choice goes though, a new set of laws should not be created. Even for economic reasons only, it would be disastrous to society as a whole. The courts would be overun. There is already enough divorce, not to mention that the average homosexual has over six hundred partners in his or her lifetime. Yes, I understand you may not be in that category but many are.
You pulled that number out of your ass, and what you’re saying about the courts is patently false.
Let’s wait and see what happens in Massachusetts, shall we? By the way, the majority of the citizens there now say that they’re fine with gay marriage, and — amazingly enough! — Massachusetts is still standing and has one of the lowest rates of divorce in the country, overall!
A “live and let live” philosophy, as opposed to one that tries to pressure people into certain values, makes sure that only happy, strong families exist, because people will get married when they’re ready and for the right reasons. Freedom works. Liberty works. Not social engineering.
As for “treatment” — actual professionals (as opposed to Christian fundamentalist trolls that acquire PhD’s so that they can push their beliefs onto the profesion) advise against it, and the official stand of the APA is that “ex-gay” “therapy” is junk psychology.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:43 am
And, no, I do not advocating punishing you. That is not the same as creating new laws.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:44 am
The numbers that I posted are from the APA.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:46 am
As far as your choice goes though, a new set of laws should not be created. Even for economic reasons only, it would be disastrous to society as a whole. The courts would be overun. There is already enough divorce, not to mention that the average homosexual has over six hundred partners in his or her lifetime. Yes, I understand you may not be in that category but many are.
As PROOF that you pulled that number out of your ass, you said “his or her” — lesbians have the lowest number of sex partners of any of the four different sex/orientation groupings.
Straight men that choose to engage in casual sex have also been shown to have had just as many sex partners as gay men. I’ve actually seen one study where they had more. There is, however, a rampant promiscuity problem in the gay community (as well as with disproportionately high suicide numbers and incidents of drug use). This is not an accident. Maybe if people would start treating them like normal people and better assimilate them into society, this wouldn’t happen. Not everyone is as strong-willed as I am. Stop trying to “fix” them — they aren’t broken. They just want to be treated like everyone else. Not with pity, not with derision, but with dignity.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:47 am
rett Says:
December 9th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
This post is the reason Rudy will never win over SoCons…Homosexuality is a choice…Science shows that it obviously is…
__________________________________
What science says this? Where do you get your information, Rett, for your assertion?
December 10th, 2007 at 9:48 am
“The numbers that I posted are from the APA.”
Link?
December 10th, 2007 at 9:48 am
What science says this? Where do you get your information, Rett, for your assertion?
His ass.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Keep in mind the average age of these individuals who responded is rather low:
A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.
The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: “[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are.”
December 10th, 2007 at 10:03 am
I can’t find the other link right now.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:10 am
It’s in print for sure, never read in online.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:15 am
In other words: the vast majority of homosexuals have not had fifty sex partners.
You said that “the average homosexual” has had “over 600.” So, in other words, you just made it up.
It would be interesting to see how many sex partners the average straight man has had, too.
Sexuality is interesting when not being used as a smear or a political tool.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I was not intended as a smear and it is not made up. I will have a source for you this evening.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Well, no, it’s definitely made up. You said that the average homosexual has had over 600 sex partners. Based on your poll, the absolute ceiling for people who have had 600 is 8%, which says nothing about “the average homsoexual.”
December 10th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Know what folks, Rett seems to make pointed assertions that he claims to be facts but ignores us when asks for sourcing or explanation. In a posting the other day he stated that Huck and Mitt were both opposed to the “Gay Agenda.” I ask him to elaborate and explain the “Gay Agenda”–silence.
Last night in a posting he asserts that science says sexual orientation (homosexuality) is a matter of choice. I ask what science says this and ask where he got this information–silence.
Sounds to me like he is just repeating the pronouncements of the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and their quack “scientists.”