If homosexuality could be prevented...

[hikersong]

Why not take the stance that they're the minority amongst people, and therefore, by that reason alone it constitutes something abnormal, (not amongst the 'norm')

Such a lovely word "abnormal".

For possibly 2-13% of people ( Wikipedia "Homosexuality"- Reasons for the uncertainty are I would have thought quite clear) it is the most normal thing in the world. I'm sure that most people would accept that homosexuals are a minority of the population...but words like abnormal are used to ostracize. Is that your intention?

 

[hikersong]

yes...and the more that's discovered, the more the ethical difficulties - mind you, sometimes i'm not too sure what really can be counted as 'normal'

Yes! Certainly I can accept that some might argue that a 'range' of sexualities is normal. However that would then leave people whose desires are currently illegal saying why not extend that range.

Perhaps we could just say that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their own concern.

Why does anyone need to control bedroom activity?

 

[hikersong]

This is a very interesting discussion.

While I would never call homosexuality a "birth defect," I might be compelled to accept any medical procedure that could make my potential child a heterosexual. I wouldn't do this for any moral reason, but rather so that the poor kid doesn't have to deal with intolerance. Emotional hardships could be prevented, just as physical hardships could be prevented for a procedure which would alter actual defects. If being heterosexual were the subjugated condition, I wouldn't really mind if my parents (however children are produced) OK'd a procedure to make me homosexual -- I'm sure I would like who I am, without the intolerance, regardless of the procedure, as that would be the only me of which I would be cognitively aware.

I think if you go down this road then you might as well say that the bigotry and bullying, both learnt activities, are more acceptable than behaviour that is genetically determined. Which is the same as saying that bigotry and bullying are ethically acceptable but being born with the "wrong" set of genes is not. Do you believe that? Should society be giving out that message?

Why not put in the work to make sure that your child had a strong sense of self esteem regardless of their sexuality? It's not impossible you know.

 

[tansy]

Perhaps we could just say that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their own concern.

Why does anyone need to control bedroom activity?

Except their is such a thing as animal rights! So some sexual activities, even if done in private, would probably be illegal..if not immoral

 

[Isambard]

Except their is such a thing as animal rights! So some sexual activities, even if done in private, would probably be illegal..if not immoral

Hence the consent requirement.

 

[tansy]

Hence the consent requirement.

Yes, so it seems like some moral judgements have to be made..things can't always be left to what people do in private, the question is, on what do we base our moral judgements? This varies from person to person, society to society...and even amongst people of faith (whatever their religion).

I think in a lot of cases, as in the OP, whatever is decided tends to be at best a compromise, given certain circumstances, and I'm not sure that in this life any of us are ever going to get it all right.

 

[Captain_Obvious]

I think if you go down this road then you might as well say that the bigotry and bullying, both learnt activities, are more acceptable than behaviour that is genetically determined.

Understood. Perhaps one of us just has less faith in the way human beings sometimes like to conduct themselves.

This idea is closer to the discussion/debate had between those who live in "deaf culture" and those who do not. Deaf people, within the culture, feel that it would be extremely evil to invent a procedure through deafness would be eliminated in or world, insisting rather that people need to put energy into finding ways to better align the deaf with the hearing world. They do not see deafness as a handicap.

In both cases, I think the cognitive identities of the currently existing are being projected onto the potential identitites of nonliving/nonexisting future entities. Yes, we must struggle to make life comfortable for the existing homosexuals/deaf, but it is unlikely that the world is ever going to be as safe or well designed for them as it is for the majority. The world is designed by the majority, though sometimes accomidations are made. However, living a life of exception and accomidation is not the same as living a life free of having to worry about whether the next town you're in is going to be as accomidating to your inalienable condition.

In other words, I believe that what you would like to see is an ideal that can only exist at the intellectual stage. I don't really believe that the entire world can be made as fair, safe, and efficient for homosexuals as it is innately for heterosexuals (or the deaf). The real problem is that people are being hurt, killed, and tormented. We know why, but no ammount of outreach and education is going to remove it entirely. If a medical procedure existed that could remove my child from the real problem, I would take it.

In this way, I think I am less about ideals and more about physical realities than some. I respect and appreciate the need for ideals, but when the physical reality being discussed is the potential pain and torment of future beings, I've got to go with the most efficient way to eliminate the risk, whether they are the most idealistic or not.

I very much understand your position, though.

 

[durangodawood]

...In this way, I think I am less about ideals and more about physical realities than some. I respect and appreciate the need for ideals, but when the physical reality being discussed is the potential pain and torment of future beings, I've got to go with the most efficient way to eliminate the risk, whether they are the most idealistic or not.

I very much understand your position, though.

Deafness is an obvious defect in one of the physical senses.
.
But the pain and torment associated with homosexuality is purely social.
.

 

[Captain_Obvious]

But the pain and torment associated with homosexuality is purely social.

I was refering to the social pain and torment suffered by deaf people. Sorry for the confusion.

I meant to imply, as well, that I believe that little can be done about the social pain and suffering experienced by minorities. Accomidations can be made, but not true ballance can exist. They will never know what it's like to live in a world designed with them at the forefront of consideration. This is my opinion, mind you.

Somewhat unrelated, but interesting, I would recommend the documentary "The Sound and the Fury." It is about the idea I talked about and covers the ways in which deaf people feel social discrimination.

 

[Mythunderstood]

Well, if it turns out the homosexuality is due to the in utero effect of over/under exposure to hormones in the developing brain (during the formation of sexual orientation), then what is wrong with regulating the hormones of the mother? I'm saying that if the fetus would have developed on a "normal" path regarding sexual formation, albeit for the abnormal level of homone exposure from the mother, then what is wrong with ensuring that all pregnant women's hormones are regulated (if even possible) to ensure that all fetuses receive a steady state of hormones (or whatever is the usual rate) vs. a sudden influx of hormones, vs. not enough. It's not like the mother would know that she is going to have a gay child and is trying to prevent it. Doctor's would just be giving all women (or possibly only those who have "irregular hormone levels") a shot or medication to ensure stablilized hormones during pregnancy. If a gay child still results, great, but any hormones that abnormally go out of whack should be regulated anyway....especially during an important formational time as pregnancy.

fyi: I am a firm supporter of gays and see nothing wrong with their lifestyles as I do believe they are actually born that way and cannot help but being attracted to the same sex.

 

[hikersong]

I think in a lot of cases, as in the OP, whatever is decided tends to be at best a compromise, given certain circumstances, and I'm not sure that in this life any of us are ever going to get it all right.

I agree. But it is not difficult, with a bit of humanity and tolerance, to stop from getting it very wrong. And we should try to get it right anyhow. People trying was what put an end to the idea that slavery was a good thing, for instance.

Good steps have been taken in some countries to ensure that at sometime in the future homosexuality won't be seen as a sin. Here in the UK for instance it is far more widely accepted than 30 years ago.

And people like myself, who were brought up believing homosexuality to be wrong, have a far better chance of getting rid of our hidden fears and changing our minds. The fact that we start out standing in judgement over other peoples lives, doesn't mean we have to finish that way.

 

[Montalban]

Such a lovely word "abnormal".

Indeed.

For possibly 2-13% of people ( Wikipedia "Homosexuality"- Reasons for the uncertainty are I would have thought quite clear) it is the most normal thing in the world. I'm sure that most people would accept that homosexuals are a minority of the population...but words like abnormal are used to ostracize. Is that your intention?

So the people who find their behaviour normal find their behaviour normal!

Another lovely word is truism

 

[Montalban]

Homosexuality is completely normal in a biological sense, even if not accepted in a social sense.

Normal in what way? You might as well argue that kids who are born with two heads are 'normal' because in biology, that happens.

Also, non-consent is the cut-off point regarding the legality of sex. Homosexual sex allows for consent, whereas bestiality and pedophilia do not.

Do you eat meat? If you do then you'll know that 'consent' with animals is irrelevant. The very fact that they can never 'consent' means that one doesn't have to worry about it. The same way we don't seek consent from animals to have them as pets, or to work (as perhaps on a farm).

If the ability not to consent were an issue then you'd have to be against people having sexual arousal with devices, such as electronic stimulating devices that also can't consent. Are you against these?

We generally consider these things wrong because to engage in sexual activity with someone who cannot consent is victimization. Homosexuality in no way compares with this.

So it's victimisation to have sex with an animal, but not to kill it and eat it? Or to put a harness on it and make it pull a plough?

Really, what's wrong with homosexuality that it doesn't compare with heterosexuality? Do we really have to banter people for being a minority?

What's wrong with it? It would depend on what criteria you allow for determining what is right, or wrong in the first place.

 

[Montalban]

I'm compelled to be straight. I feel like I have very little choice about that.
.

Really? So you just are attracted to people based on pre-programming? Your partners weren't perhaps aware that you were an automaton drawn to them by something you had no control over?


Apparently if it's all chemical/biological, then you can fix that with an injection.

 

[hikersong]

Indeed.


So the people who find their behaviour normal find their behaviour normal!

Another lovely word is truism

Yeah. OK.

So, do you go round calling everybody who doesn't fit into the majority "abnormal"? That was the point of my post.

It is word that is one level up from freak. At least it has become that, whatever it's technical meaning.

As I said, words like this are used to ostracize. Do you agree or not? If I see words like that used, I suspect an agenda, and in this case the suspected agenda is one that I disagree profoundly with.

I have a cleft lip. Like homosexuality it is something that one is born with and, here comes that truism again, for me it is the most normal thing in the world. Truisms have there place, if you don't happen to fit into the accepted norm.

But another description for my cleft lip is "birth defect". An abnormality. These are words that people who are in the majority might use to describe it. It can be just a point of reference measured against the majority "norm". Unfortunately however, it often starts to take on the appearance of objective truth. "Difference" can start to mean "defect". We should know where that can all lead.


The whole area of the ethics of genetics is massive and subject to a pile of subjective emotions of course. I would just say that, in discussing it we would be wise use inemotive language.

 

[Montalban]

Yeah. OK.

So, do you go round calling everybody who doesn't fit into the majority "abnormal"? That was the point of my post.

That's the point in having the word 'normal'. I didn't say 'abnormal' was bad per se.

As I said, words like this are used to ostracize. Do you agree or not? If I see words like that used, I suspect an agenda, and in this case the suspected agenda is one that I disagree profoundly with.

Words can also have their meanings blurred for social-engineering purposes too.

Thus we hear the word homophobic which means someone afraid of homosexuals. I neither fear nor hate homosexuals.

I have a cleft lip. Like homosexuality it is something that one is born with and, here comes that truism again, for me it is the most normal thing in the world. Truisms have there place, if you don't happen to fit into the accepted norm.

Are you against people who have surgery so as to lessen the appearence of their cleft-lips?

But another description for my cleft lip is "birth defect". An abnormality. These are words that people who are in the majority might use to describe it. It can be just a point of reference, but itcan often start to take on the appearance of a truism. "Difference" can start to mean "defect".

Cleft-lips can cause many problems and are medically called 'defects', or more exactly a congenital deformity.

I am not saying at all that this makes you bad. Please accept my apologies if you think I am insulting you over this.

The whole area of the ethics of genetics is massive and subject to a pile of subjective emotions of course. I would just say that, in discussing it we would be wise use inemotive language.

If our emotions are purely subjective then so is your idea that homosexuality should be included, making you arguing for something that isn't of itself objectively right. Your argument then is self-defeating.

 

[hikersong]

Monalban's points:

That's the point in having the word 'normal'. I didn't say 'abnormal' was bad per se.

OK


Words can also have their meanings blurred for social-engineering purposes too.
Thus we hear the word homophobic which means someone afraid of homosexuals. I neither fear nor hate homosexuals.

It looks like you are saying, because other people do it then it's alright for me to do it too.

Are you against people who have surgery so as to lessen the appearence of their cleft-lips?

No

Cleft-lips can cause many problems and are medically called 'defects', or more exactly a congenital deformity.

Um, yes?

I am not saying at all that this makes you bad. Please accept my apologies if you think I am insulting you over this.

You didn't say anything about me so you have nothing to apologize for. I brought up my cleft lip as a point of comparison. Probably not a good idea, in retrospect.

If our emotions are purely subjective then so is your idea that homosexuality should be included, making you arguing for something that isn't of itself objectively right. Your argument then is self-defeating.

Pardon. Firstly, my main point in my posts to you have been about the language we use. That is the main argument I have been making.

Secondly, just because our emotions are subjective (and I'm a big fan of subjective emotions) it doesn't mean our reasoning can't be objective. Well, fairly

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. You seem to think homosexuality is wrong, though I am sort of inferring that from your posts.

The only reasons I have heard why people think that is because they believe it says it in the bible/koran (that is a matter of opinion, not of truth) or because it is against nature (which is demonstrably false). But if you have some other insights on the matter I'm happy to discuss them.

 

[Supreme]

The only reasons I have heard why people think that is because they believe it says it in the bible/koran (that is a matter of opinion, not of truth) or because it is against nature (which is demonstrably false). But if you have some other insights on the matter I'm happy to discuss them.

Oh yes. A laughable argument. It's against nature to do almost everything we do. Hell, let's ditch our clothes, deficate behind trees and hunt our food.

 

[Montalban]

[/I]It looks like you are saying, because other people do it then it's alright for me to do it too.

Actually if anything I'm trying to fight post-modernist attempts to remove meaning from words.

Pardon. Firstly, my main point in my posts to you have been about the language we use. That is the main argument I have been making.

Indeed, and in the language and I'm looking at people who think everything is subjective

Secondly, just because our emotions are subjective (and I'm a big fan of subjective emotions) it doesn't mean our reasoning can't be objective. Well, fairly

I agree

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. You seem to think homosexuality is wrong, though I am sort of inferring that from your posts.

Well I do, by God's Will, excepting I don't expect many people on this particular thread may believe in God. So instead I would like to examine the rationale that people give here for thinking it's okay.

People have applied particular tests, such as someone talking about 'consent'. I then looked at what happens if one extends that concept of consent to other forms of sexual encounter.

Also, some people here may believe that there is no God, and that everything is merely materialisitc (ie. we're governed by biology). So I examine this too.

Now you know where I stand

The only reasons I have heard why people think that is because they believe it says it in the bible/koran (that is a matter of opinion, not of truth) or because it is against nature (which is demonstrably false). But if you have some other insights on the matter I'm happy to discuss them.

Well that's what I've been doing.

 

[Montalban]

Oh yes. A laughable argument. It's against nature to do almost everything we do. Hell, let's ditch our clothes, deficate behind trees and hunt our food.

Indeed. If there's no over-arching morality and people are free to define their own ideas of right and wrong then anything is possible to be justified.

And who has the right to protest against that? My subjective view of right would be equally as valid as everyone else's subjective view.