Rationality of choice

[DJPavel]

Whoever said God didn't want us to have sex and make babies? I'm sorry, but I must have missed it. If you recall in medieval times, it was very common for kids to be married off as soon as they hit puberty, it is also a view of the Catholic Church (or was) that we should have at least five children. Which btw I disagree with, and I'm sure was a product of war. We're not supposed to have sex each time our hormones secrete because, well...if you wanna try it out, and tell me what happens, I'm sure it'd be a much better example then me having to explain it.

I would never suggest we should have sex every time the hormones are secreted. But the reasons for that are cultural and practical (the former can be reduced to the latter) - NOT because that's what Creator has ordered.

I was merely pointing out an inconsistency and selectiveness in holysee's logic. He argues that we should follow the purpose of what the Creator has ordered in one case, but we should not follow the purpose in another.....

DJP.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Well, I always get awfully suspicious when people talk about "the word of God". The God we know today is just an image created by man, I say f to that, I'll find him my own way. And since, the "image of God" is compiled of hundreds of generations of people altering it, the ideas of countless eras of new thinking etc., its kind of a patchwork job : /

 

[DJPavel]

Well, I always get awfully suspicious when people talk about "the word of God". The God we know today is just an image created by man, I say f to that, I'll find him my own way. And since, the "image of God" is compiled of hundreds of generations of people altering it, the ideas of countless eras of new thinking etc., its kind of a patchwork job : /

ditto

 

[holysee]

Sex serves the purpose of procreation. It is necessary for the survival of the species. Homosexuality is not necessary for the survival of the species. The lack of biological utility for a human activity does not as such make it wrong. It does though suggest that it was not ordained by its creator for any essential reason.

Hormonal activity is not separate from thought processes so to that extent any sexual activity is a matter of choice. A biological imperative to reproduce linked to thought processes has a certain impact on hormones. An analogous imperative does not exist in same-sex attraction unless the biological imperative is directed towards an end for which it was not originally ordered. Thus making it dis-ordered.

 

[elcapitan]

Hormonal activity is not separate from thought processes so to that extent any sexual activity is a matter of choice. A biological imperative to reproduce linked to thought processes has a certain impact on hormones. An analogous imperative does not exist in same-sex attraction unless the biological imperative is directed towards an end for which it was not originally ordered. Thus making it dis-ordered.

Hormones are impacted by thought?! If this were true, diabetics could cure themselves by simply thinking to produce more insulin.

 

[IzzyPop]

Sex serves the purpose of procreation. It is necessary for the survival of the species. Homosexuality is not necessary for the survival of the species. The lack of biological utility for a human activity does not as such make it wrong. It does though suggest that it was not ordained by its creator for any essential reason.

One one level, you are correct. But sex is much, much more then just for the continuation of the species. It is an expression of love. A time of spiritual bonding alongside the physical. A place that we can share with our partner a profound expression of our love. To reduce it to mere propagation is to lessen it's power and significance. The emotions involved are no different between a homosexual couple than between a heterosexual couple. How is it right to condemn someone for feeling the trancendental power of love just because we don't agree with whom the target of that love is? And frankly, that is what this is about. Love, not sex, not choice, not morality. Simple, wonderful, confusing, exasperating love between two consenting adults. What is wrong with that?

Hormonal activity is not separate from thought processes so to that extent any sexual activity is a matter of choice. A biological imperative to reproduce linked to thought processes has a certain impact on hormones. An analogous imperative does not exist in same-sex attraction unless the biological imperative is directed towards an end for which it was not originally ordered. Thus making it dis-ordered.

Seriously, you almost have it. But for one little phrase. 'Thus making it dis-ordered'. That is a judgment call on your part.
Yes. Homosexuality is most likely a crossing of the wires in the brain at a very early age or probably in utero. It is natural. Would you ask a blind person to read a book? Would you force a lefty to write with their right hand? But you will ask someone born with a different sexual preference to abstain from love and happiness. Why? Because of some old book? Because it make you uncomfortable? You would make them less because of something that no one has control over. Whom they love. Would Romeo and Juliet be nearly as a compelling story if love were rational and in our control? Would we want it to be if we had the chance to make it so?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Gayness is a bi-product of nature I think, something that happened along the way due to our rare nature.

 

[redmartian89]

Is there even a rational cause for homosexuality to be wrong?

The best I can think of is to call homosexuality a mental illness, similar to bipolar or depression. Part nature, part nurture, part will power.

What are you basing this on? References please.

The preferences may exist when born, but don't consciously exist until childhood, at earliest. The sexual feelings don't come till puberty.

I never said that my opinion was professional. This is an original theory I'm basing on my life and those around me.

RedMartian, how long have you been straight, or when did you first notice your preference?

I have not declared a sexuality. How do you know that I am not gay?

But I have noticed my true seuxal preferences at about 12-13. Before that, nothing other then friends and family existed.

EDIT: You should notice that I am drawing a long line between sexual feelings and preferences and other feelings (close friends, NOT lovers and crushes).

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Well, in either case, you can't say homosexuality is a problem unless it is a direct cause of a problem.


So far I can't think of anything

 

[holysee]

Hormones are impacted by thought?! If this were true, diabetics could cure themselves by simply thinking to produce more insulin.

What I said was that hormones, in this case sexual hormones, are not separate from the thought processes. Not al hormones are the same as each other. Thats probably why they have different names and perform different tasks in the body. In any event diabetes is produced by harm done in the islets of langerhans if memory serves me well and that is about more than just hormones its about bodily organs and tissue.

The hormones produced by the thyroid clearly relate to the mental life of a person http://www.thyroid.ca/Articles/EngE10F.html

The psychiatric disturbances which accompany hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism, the two commonest thyroid disorders, mimic mental illness. People with an overactive thyroid may exhibit marked anxiety and tension, emotional lability, impatience and irritability, distractible overactivity, exaggerated sensitivity to noise, and fluctuating depression with sadness and problems with sleep and the appetite. In extreme cases, they may appear schizophrenic, losing touch with reality and becoming delirious or hallucinating. An underactive thyroid can lead to progressive loss of interest and initiative, slowing of mental processes, poor memory for recent events, fading of the personality's colour and vivacity, general intellectual deterioration, depression with a paranoid flavour, and eventually, if not checked, to dementia and permanent harmful effects on the brain. In instances of each condition, some persons have been wrongly diagnosed, hospitalized for months, and treated unsuccessfully for psychosis.

http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/162404.html

Intelegen .com is a web site, presenting many informative ways of understanding and enhancing brain and brain function, they put it this way: Imagine this you have a machine with: Over a billion parts featuring advanced nano-technology. A machine capable of self-repair. One so advanced that a million of its hydraulic pumps can fit on a pin. An advanced central processing unit that dwarfs anything made of silicon. This CPU is so advanced that it requires no physical interface. You control it with your thoughts. This biological machine needs a constant supply of raw chemicals to support chemical (molecular processes) reactions occurring at a micro level. If it is lacking any of these chemicals it requires it will malfunction. Some of the nano devices it builds will be defective, some nerve impulses may not jump the gap, new neural pathways may not get laid very fast. Stop imagining, get the reality?. This machine can be tweaked just like a cars carburetor. That machine is what you call your body.

 

[elcapitan]

What I said was that hormones, in this case sexual hormones, are not separate from the thought processes. Not al hormones are the same as each other. Thats probably why they have different names and perform different tasks in the body. In any event diabetes is produced by harm done in the islets of langerhans if memory serves me well and that is about more than just hormones its about bodily organs and tissue.

The hormones produced by the thyroid clearly relate to the mental life of a person http://www.thyroid.ca/Articles/EngE10F.html

The psychiatric disturbances which accompany hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism, the two commonest thyroid disorders, mimic mental illness. People with an overactive thyroid may exhibit marked anxiety and tension, emotional lability, impatience and irritability, distractible overactivity, exaggerated sensitivity to noise, and fluctuating depression with sadness and problems with sleep and the appetite. In extreme cases, they may appear schizophrenic, losing touch with reality and becoming delirious or hallucinating. An underactive thyroid can lead to progressive loss of interest and initiative, slowing of mental processes, poor memory for recent events, fading of the personality's colour and vivacity, general intellectual deterioration, depression with a paranoid flavour, and eventually, if not checked, to dementia and permanent harmful effects on the brain. In instances of each condition, some persons have been wrongly diagnosed, hospitalized for months, and treated unsuccessfully for psychosis.

http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/162404.html

Intelegen .com is a web site, presenting many informative ways of understanding and enhancing brain and brain function, they put it this way: Imagine this you have a machine with: Over a billion parts featuring advanced nano-technology. A machine capable of self-repair. One so advanced that a million of its hydraulic pumps can fit on a pin. An advanced central processing unit that dwarfs anything made of silicon. This CPU is so advanced that it requires no physical interface. You control it with your thoughts. This biological machine needs a constant supply of raw chemicals to support chemical (molecular processes) reactions occurring at a micro level. If it is lacking any of these chemicals it requires it will malfunction. Some of the nano devices it builds will be defective, some nerve impulses may not jump the gap, new neural pathways may not get laid very fast. Stop imagining, get the reality?. This machine can be tweaked just like a cars carburetor. That machine is what you call your body.

I never said that hormones don't affect thoughts. What I was saying was that thoughts don't affect hormone production. (yes, word order is important here.)

P.S. If you want to look credible, post links to websites with real scientists instead of newage crackpots like Deepak Chopra and others who call themselves "para-psychologists".

 

[DJPavel]

Sex serves the purpose of procreation. It is necessary for the survival of the species. Homosexuality is not necessary for the survival of the species. The lack of biological utility for a human activity does not as such make it wrong. It does though suggest that it was not ordained by its creator for any essential reason.

I wish you were paying closer attention to what I say - worker ants do not have sex and procreate, which by your logic suggests that their behavior "was not ordained by its creator for any essential reason". This is obviously an absurd conclusion, but that's because the purpose of the worker ants or bees is obvious. Being a presumptuous believer as you are (I apologize, just couldn't help), you seem to believe only in everything that's obvious to you, which is naive, I hope you would agree. Given the fact(!) that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon in both human and animal kingdoms, it's a little presumptuous to conclude that just because we don't see any obvious reasons for it, there must not be one. The history is filled with examples when people jump to conclusions simply because they don't know the answer, including our brightest scientists like Newton and Einstein. (Newton is a classic - after struggling to explain why the planets rotate in the same plane and direction, he concluded it must have been providence).

So, unless you're going to tell me again that you already know the answer because you've read it in the Catechism, I would wait a little bit longer for the professionals in the field to give us some more clues about this phenomenon.

Hormonal activity is not separate from thought processes so to that extent any sexual activity is a matter of choice. A biological imperative to reproduce linked to thought processes has a certain impact on hormones. An analogous imperative does not exist in same-sex attraction unless the biological imperative is directed towards an end for which it was not originally ordered. Thus making it dis-ordered.

Here comes the Church again with its Cartesian dualistic tradition. That's right, once you assume there is this thing mind, which is separate from the body and which controls the latter, the conclusion is easy to draw. Unfortunately, nobody takes the idea of homunculus seriously any longer. Not to say that he doesn't exist, but to defend him, and the whole Christian doctine of separation of mind from body, you would have to answer some very tough questions, which would be proper for this forum, by the way. If you're not willing to defend dualism, then I would not be presumptuous of the causal relationship between the hormones and the thought. I would actually argue the former determines the latter - there has been plenty of research done in this field.



DJP

 

[DJPavel]

Is there even a rational cause for homosexuality to be wrong?

The best I can think of is to call homosexuality a mental illness, similar to bipolar or depression. Part nature, part nurture, part will power.

That's the best you can think of ??? Dude!! Come on, this is really now talking out of the a$$. The reason I posted the question in the "philosophy" section is because I assumed participants here provide at least one level of argument for why they think a specific way. Please consider posting your feelings somewhere else, or give them some rational meat.

I never said that my opinion was professional. This is an original theory I'm basing on my life and those around me.

I see, I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I have no reason why I should trust your life and wisdom from it. There are plenty of crackpots here with original theories. How do I know you're not one of them?

I have not declared a sexuality. How do you know that I am not gay?

I relied on my intuitive statistical inference - I never met a gay man who would be saying things you do. If you are gay, you're a unique and interesting case indeed. I'm sorry if I got it wrong, but I still bet on my intuition here. What was your point anyway?

But I have noticed my true seuxal preferences at about 12-13. Before that, nothing other then friends and family existed.

EDIT: You should notice that I am drawing a long line between sexual feelings and preferences and other feelings (close friends, NOT lovers and crushes).

I still don't get it. Are you telling me that my sexual preference is different from my lust or curiosity?

 

[DJPavel]

Seriously, you almost have it. But for one little phrase. 'Thus making it dis-ordered'. That is a judgment call on your part.
Yes. Homosexuality is most likely a crossing of the wires in the brain at a very early age or probably in utero. It is natural. Would you ask a blind person to read a book? Would you force a lefty to write with their right hand? But you will ask someone born with a different sexual preference to abstain from love and happiness. Why? Because of some old book? Because it make you uncomfortable? You would make them less because of something that no one has control over. Whom they love. Would Romeo and Juliet be nearly as a compelling story if love were rational and in our control? Would we want it to be if we had the chance to make it so?

I could only wish I was as eloquent

 

[DJPavel]

http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/162404.html

This belongs on crank.net. As somebody has already mentioned, please use real scientists when talking about science.

Intelegen .com is a web site, presenting many informative ways of understanding and enhancing brain and brain function, they put it this way: Imagine this you have a machine with: Over a billion parts featuring advanced nano-technology. A machine capable of self-repair. One so advanced that a million of its hydraulic pumps can fit on a pin. An advanced central processing unit that dwarfs anything made of silicon. This CPU is so advanced that it requires no physical interface. You control it with your thoughts. This biological machine needs a constant supply of raw chemicals to support chemical (molecular processes) reactions occurring at a micro level. If it is lacking any of these chemicals it requires it will malfunction. Some of the nano devices it builds will be defective, some nerve impulses may not jump the gap, new neural pathways may not get laid very fast. Stop imagining, get the reality?. This machine can be tweaked just like a cars carburetor. That machine is what you call your body.

I think you misinterpreted what they're saying. I think they're simply doing the reverse of anthropomorphism (is there a term for that?) to give you a sense of how complicated the bilological machinery is in the language we can relate to - we build machines after all. This has NOTHING to do with dualism, which your assumption of cause and effect (thought->hormone) implies. If you beg to differ, I'd like to elaborate on the sentence "You control it with your thoughts". What is "YOU"? And how do you control anything by mind outside the body? By what mechanism? Please be specific.

DJP

 

[ArchaicTruth]

hey DJP, am I a crackpot?

 

[DJPavel]

hey DJP, am I a crackpot?

LOL, I don't know, are you? You know, as long as you provide some rationale behind your belief and you're open to its criticism, whether it's right or wrong, you're good. Just be intellectually honest with yourself and others. Some of crackpots are actually quite good and they hold high positions at prestigious establishments. I remember even becoming an Intelligent Design proponent after reading a couple of them (Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" and "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton).

In general, if your belief goes against a well established belief in the scientific community, you should be very suspicious of yourself being a crackpot. The reason the scientific community is the authority is because they provide a mechanism for checking if they've got it wrong and correcting it. None of other methods of inquiry, as far as I know, has this mechanism.

DJP

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I'm not a crackpot?

[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], obviously I haven't been working hard enough...

You know, I work very hard to keep the image of insanity, and I'm very proud of it

 

[elcapitan]

The reason the scientific community is the authority is because they provide a mechanism for checking if they've got it wrong and correcting it. None of other methods of inquiry, as far as I know, has this mechanism.

edit:
Exactly

I think too many people assume that scripture infallible, and so assume any evidence that contradicts it to be wrong a priori. If you take this view you're basically saying that your experience and observation of the real world is less valid than statements someone wrote down 2000 years ago. There's no way to check if you're wrong or adjust to experience and observation because you're already assuming that scripture is true no matter what.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Dude, that was seriously uncalled for

A kind and peaceful Christian is better than a snide and mocking atheist any day, and vice versa