|
On March 20 2011 19:34 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I must correct everyone on a minor but relevant point. In no country is it illegal to be "gay." In some countries it is illegal to perform homosexual acts, sodomy if you will. Judging by our standards, Saudi Arabia is the most gay-friendly country on earth, where men hold hands in public without any embarrassment.
No law makes it illegal to be "who you are." It makes it illegal to perform certain acts salient to your character. Generally, the places where homosexuality is most harshly regarded, also take greatest offence at other forms of sexual licence, such as fornication or adultery. Usually those laws regulate and govern peoples with a great propensity for committing such acts. As they are, they serve the needs of various primitive societies which place a high premium on social cohesion. It's not admirable, but it's not a thing to be tsked away with a wag of the finger.
Key word: primitive.
Let's not use those societies as a standard. There's a reason why the West is much more progressed than those and part of it has to do with equal rights.
|
Molkte you are dancing around the subject just like so many of the conservatives here in the states that I despise. You say that it isn't illegal to be gay, only to perform homosexual acts. That's just being silly and sidestepping the point.All you are saying is "its okay to be homosexual but not to act on your homosexuality", surely you see the contradiction there.
|
Well, that's really all there is to his arguments. There actually isn't any substance to it, just the veil of one.
|
From what Molkte has posted here and in some other threads I gather he is religious (though I can't claim to know so do correct me if I am wrong), and while I don't want to turn this into some sort of religious debate, he is using every trick and raising every discredited point that the religious right does.
|
On March 20 2011 19:42 Kickstart wrote:
Molkte you are dancing around the subject just like so many of the conservatives here in the states that I despise. You say that it isn't illegal to be gay, only to perform homosexual acts. That's just being silly and sidestepping the point.All you are saying is "its okay to be homosexual but not to act on your homosexuality", surely you see the contradiction there.
Not at all. Both laws and morality address acts and not states, as I argued to Masamune. By turning it into a debate about who you are and not what you do, it is you and everyone else who posits the position who is really distorting the debate. If the two are equivalent, or if I by distinguishing the two am sidestepping, then you ought to have no objection to my statement revising the concepts as such. However, you object to the restatement, and here is why:
By emphasizing the who a person is, and avoiding what he chooses to do, you dodge both morality, and all facets of law other than the upper abstract layer of positive rights. Now, if I attack gay pride on any level, your self-blindsighting will always redirect the argument to your monofixation on positive rights. Truth to be told, I am indifferent as to what positive rights homosexual claim or collect in my country. I don't support them, but I would not waste a single breath against them.
I would not want the gay priders to waste any more of their mental energies fighting the persecution complex. Once you get past the notion that there is a group of hostile ideologues out to persecute you, maybe you will return to normal concerns of cultivating good manners and deciding what positive role you can contribute to your community. Vain hope, I know.
|
|
|
On March 20 2011 20:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 19:42 Kickstart wrote:
Molkte you are dancing around the subject just like so many of the conservatives here in the states that I despise. You say that it isn't illegal to be gay, only to perform homosexual acts. That's just being silly and sidestepping the point.All you are saying is "its okay to be homosexual but not to act on your homosexuality", surely you see the contradiction there. Not at all. Both laws and morality address acts and not states, as I argued to Masamune. By turning it into a debate about who you are and not what you do, it is you and everyone else who posits the position who is really distorting the debate. If the two are equivalent, or if I by distinguishing the two am sidestepping, then you ought to have no objection to my statement revising the concepts as such. However, you object to the restatement, and here is why: By emphasizing the who a person is, and avoiding what he chooses to do, you dodge both morality, and all facets of law other than the upper abstract layer of positive rights. Now, if I attack gay pride on any level, your self-blindsighting will always redirect the argument to your monofixation on positive rights. Truth to be told, I am indifferent as to what positive rights homosexual claim or collect in my country. I don't support them, but I would not waste a single breath against them. I would not want the gay priders to waste any more of their mental energies fighting the persecution complex. Once you get past the notion that there are a group of hostile ideologues out to persecute you, maybe you will return to normal concerns of cultivating good manners and deciding what positive role you can contribute to your community. Vain hope, I know.
Acts are within the realm of behaviour, which happen to be influenced by one's biology in every instance. Much the same way a homosexual has a predisposition to commit homosexual acts, a beaver has a predisposition to commit dam-building acts. It's what is described as an extended phenotype because the genes responsible for what an organism is are also attributable to what that organism does. If laws and morality address acts, they also address states, at least in the case of homosexuality.
|
Being homosexual means that you are sexually attracted to peoples of the same sex, therefor if a state is not against homosexuality, they should not ban same-sex intercourse, and if they do, they make being a homosexual illegal.Saying that homosexuality is acceptable but homosexual acts are not is silly and just a way to try and justify homophobia. I'm not going to continue to argue your discredited point. Homosexuals will have sex, if there is a law that makes this illegal, then it is a law against what I am, not what I choose, I don't choose which sex I am attracted to.
You won't come out and say it but you are hinting that homosexuality is immoral, at least that is how I am reading several of your replies in this thread, is that your view? If so I would love for you to justify the claim.
|
Sigh, if you want to employ scientific illustration, I'd advise you not to impose speculation as science. There is no scientific consensus on the causes of homosexuality, and not even a respectable argument that the genetic providence of homosexuality is so determinate as to predict not only his dispositions, but his actions.
You see, I am typing this late at night because I am genetically predisposed to argue against you on this very issue. I'm also genetically predisposed, I suppose, to asexuality, Catholic conservatism, and imitating the polemic of certain extreme Right-wing American authorities. I am genetically disposed to be a bigot. Kickstart is genetically disposed to hate my bigotry. You're genetically disposed to believe in genetic disposition.
All of which is very morbid. If I am predisposed to homosexuality, it seems odd to celebrate its flourishing, unless I were genetically predisposed to that as well.
There's nothing you can say to people who argue like that, as long as they are willing to carry on the charade of absurdity. Masamune is one of those men of the machine men for whom, as Simone Weil said 70 years ago, "it is the thing that thinks, and man is reduced to a thing."
|
Well at least the thread reached the 3rd or 4th page before utterly going to the gutter.
|
On March 20 2011 21:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Sigh, if you want to employ scientific illustration, I'd advise you not to impose speculation as science. There is no scientific consensus on the causes of homosexuality, and not even a respectable argument that the genetic providence of homosexuality is so determinate as to predict not only his dispositions, but his actions.
You see, I am typing this late at night because I am genetically predisposed to argue against you on this very issue. I'm also genetically predisposed, I suppose, to asexuality, Catholic conservatism, and imitating the polemic of certain extreme Right-wing American authorities. I am genetically disposed to be a bigot. Kickstart is genetically disposed to hate my bigotry. You're genetically disposed to believe in genetic disposition.
All of which is very morbid. If I am predisposed to homosexuality, it seems odd to celebrate its flourishing, unless I were genetically predisposed to that as well.
There's nothing you can say to people who argue like that, as long as they are willing to carry on the charade of absurdity. Masamune is one of those men of the machine men for whom, as Simone Weil said 70 years ago, "it is the thing that thinks, and man is reduced to a thing."
lol I'm willing to carry on the charade of absurdity?!
The traits you mention all have a biological basis in that your predisposition to act the way you are is coded for in your DNA, but your environment (maybe in your case, the interaction with your parents when you were at an impressionable age?) has obviously helped to nurture these predispositions. If I were to persecute you for your persona on TL, I would also be persecuting you for who you just happen to be at heart.
There is no one single major gene that can be identified in homosexuals. That is not to say the trait has no biological basis, which the scientific community does accept that it does, whatever that may be. Before you advise not to impose speculation as science, I would advise that you do not speculate at all. Read the literature; you will find that there is plenty of evidence in the biological nature of homosexuality. The causes are not as clear but that's a result of our inability to identify them.
|
On March 20 2011 21:33 Entropic wrote:
Well at least the thread reached the 3rd or 4th page before utterly going to the gutter.
It's disappointing to see. People were banned in the GSL LR thread for the slightest mention of an opinion of imbalance but here Moltke can a waltz in this nice thread, make a derogatory post and get away without even a warning.
I think he is entitled to his opinion, but it should have been the OP of a new thread, not the tarnishing of this one.
|
My dear Masamune, there is a measure of modesty and proportion which are simply matters of decorum. The lack of proportion is in this:
To make your point that biology negates ethics, you must show not only that free will is negated in a person's sexual orientation, but in his sexual behaviour. The latter is phenomenologically untrue, and every ordinary person I should hope including yourself, should be able to bear testimony to that.
As for the former, I am heavily inclined more toward the argument of moral machinery. Ancient Greek practices of pederasty and adult homosexuality was widespread among certain classes as an institutionalized social ritual. The Greeks who indulged in such practices had no conception of sexual orientation as we have today.
I am quite willing to accept the theory of a soft genetic disposition in sexual provenance, but the wax and wane of homosexuality as a phenomenon across different cultures, and the phenomenon of changing sexual orientation, suggest that it is no more than a soft and potentially mutable influence.
Whatever the case may be, it falls far short of your speculative genetic determinism.
But let's see how far you are willing to take the charade: to what extent, in your opinion, is an individual morally responsible for his own behaviour?
I think he is entitled to his opinion, but it should have been the OP of a new thread, not the tarnishing of Last edit: 2011-03-20 22:12:11
this one.
Eh? At the risk of self-importance, there was nothing in this thread before I came along and ruined it.
|
Again with the implying that homosexuality is unethical, immoral, and a choice.
EDIT: I'm ready to lay down but I will address one point before I do. You say that homosexuality as a phenomenon has waxed and waned over time, and imply that sexuality is changeable. In your opinion which is more likely, that over time the spectrum of peoples sexuality has changed, or that societies acceptance of peoples sexuality has changed?
|
On March 20 2011 22:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:My dear Masamune, there is a measure of modesty and proportion which are simply matters of decorum. The lack of proportion is in this: To make your point that biology negates ethics, you must show not only that free will is negated in a person's sexual orientation, but in his sexual behaviour. The latter is phenomenologically untrue, and every ordinary person I should hope including yourself, should be able to bear testimony to that. As for the former, I am heavily inclined more toward the argument of moral machinery. Ancient Greek practices of pederasty and adult homosexuality was widespread among certain classes as an institutionalized social ritual. The Greeks who indulged in such practices had no conception of sexual orientation as we have today. I am quite willing to accept the theory of a soft genetic disposition in sexual provenance, but the wax and wane of homosexuality as a phenomenon across different cultures, and the phenomenon of changing sexual orientation, suggest that it is no more than a soft and potentially mutable influence. Whatever the case may be, it falls far short of your speculative genetic determinism. But let's see how far you are willing to take the charade: to what extent, in your opinion, is an individual morally responsible for his own behaviour? Show nested quote +
I think he is entitled to his opinion, but it should have been the OP of a new thread, not the tarnishing of Last edit: 2011-03-20 22:12:11
this one.
Eh? At the risk of self-importance, there was nothing in this thread before I came along and ruined it.
Whether the Greeks indulged in homosexual practices has nothing to do with it's biological basis. You know nothing of science to even address the merits of homosexuality being biologically rooted. For it to a be a mutable influence, it wouldn't exist at even half the prevalency it does today. Much the same way eusocial insects sacrifice their own direct reproductive success for the indirect success of their kin, homosexuality probably evolved in humans. And it isn't a trait confined to only to us, over 1500 species are known to commit homosexual behaviours.
An individual really isn't morally responsible for his own behaviour. It is society that draws the line of what is morally acceptable and those that happen to cross it, at the risk of society, are considered to be immoral, and rightfully so.
|
On March 20 2011 22:26 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 22:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:My dear Masamune, there is a measure of modesty and proportion which are simply matters of decorum. The lack of proportion is in this: To make your point that biology negates ethics, you must show not only that free will is negated in a person's sexual orientation, but in his sexual behaviour. The latter is phenomenologically untrue, and every ordinary person I should hope including yourself, should be able to bear testimony to that. As for the former, I am heavily inclined more toward the argument of moral machinery. Ancient Greek practices of pederasty and adult homosexuality was widespread among certain classes as an institutionalized social ritual. The Greeks who indulged in such practices had no conception of sexual orientation as we have today. I am quite willing to accept the theory of a soft genetic disposition in sexual provenance, but the wax and wane of homosexuality as a phenomenon across different cultures, and the phenomenon of changing sexual orientation, suggest that it is no more than a soft and potentially mutable influence. Whatever the case may be, it falls far short of your speculative genetic determinism. But let's see how far you are willing to take the charade: to what extent, in your opinion, is an individual morally responsible for his own behaviour?
I think he is entitled to his opinion, but it should have been the OP of a new thread, not the tarnishing of Last edit: 2011-03-20 22:12:11
this one.
Eh? At the risk of self-importance, there was nothing in this thread before I came along and ruined it. Whether the Greeks indulged in homosexual practices has nothing to do with it's biological basis. You know nothing of science to even address the merits of homosexuality being biologically rooted. For it to a be a mutable influence, it wouldn't exist at even half the prevalency it does today. Much the same way eusocial insects sacrifice their own direct reproductive success for the indirect success of their kin, homosexuality probably evolved in humans. And it isn't a trait confined to only to us, over 1500 species are known to commit homosexual behaviours. An individual really isn't morally responsible for his own behaviour. It is society that draws the line of what is morally acceptable and those that happen to cross it, at the risk of society, are considered to be immoral, and rightfully so.
Well, Masamune, of course it does. Remember the thing to be proven is that not only is biology a factor, but it is the only factor which excludes all other elements from behaviour, including volition. The Greek example suggests social influences on sexual practice. The phenomenon of switching sexual orientation suggests the influence of personal disposition.
By quoting your scientific authority, I hope you're not going to go by the basis of BBC archives on insect homosexuality. You're not making a good case for human dignity here. Suppose I were to make the case for sexual cannibalism as a sexual orientation. I am going to go to the supreme court to argue my case thus:
Sexual cannibalism is a phenomenon prescribed by genetic coding, passed down from a genetic instinct to provide nutrition for the female partner. It has demonstrably evolved in certain insects, quite independently of humans, such as in certain praying mantuses and specimen of spiders. As a trait of my genetic provenance, I cannot be held morally responsible if I consume my mate after copulation.
Plausible, no? Or maybe I just really hated my wife. Who knows.
|
An individual really isn't morally responsible for his own behaviour. It is society that draws the line of what is morally acceptable and those that happen to cross it, at the risk of society, are considered to Last edit: 2011-03-20 22:29:00
be immoral, and rightfully so.
So, an individual cannot be immoral, but a society can judge him to be immoral. Am I right on that?
I miss the old says, when people who debated could actually see the train wreck coming in front of their noses.
|
On March 20 2011 22:45 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 22:26 Masamune wrote:On March 20 2011 22:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:My dear Masamune, there is a measure of modesty and proportion which are simply matters of decorum. The lack of proportion is in this: To make your point that biology negates ethics, you must show not only that free will is negated in a person's sexual orientation, but in his sexual behaviour. The latter is phenomenologically untrue, and every ordinary person I should hope including yourself, should be able to bear testimony to that. As for the former, I am heavily inclined more toward the argument of moral machinery. Ancient Greek practices of pederasty and adult homosexuality was widespread among certain classes as an institutionalized social ritual. The Greeks who indulged in such practices had no conception of sexual orientation as we have today. I am quite willing to accept the theory of a soft genetic disposition in sexual provenance, but the wax and wane of homosexuality as a phenomenon across different cultures, and the phenomenon of changing sexual orientation, suggest that it is no more than a soft and potentially mutable influence. Whatever the case may be, it falls far short of your speculative genetic determinism. But let's see how far you are willing to take the charade: to what extent, in your opinion, is an individual morally responsible for his own behaviour?
I think he is entitled to his opinion, but it should have been the OP of a new thread, not the tarnishing of Last edit: 2011-03-20 22:12:11
this one.
Eh? At the risk of self-importance, there was nothing in this thread before I came along and ruined it. Whether the Greeks indulged in homosexual practices has nothing to do with it's biological basis. You know nothing of science to even address the merits of homosexuality being biologically rooted. For it to a be a mutable influence, it wouldn't exist at even half the prevalency it does today. Much the same way eusocial insects sacrifice their own direct reproductive success for the indirect success of their kin, homosexuality probably evolved in humans. And it isn't a trait confined to only to us, over 1500 species are known to commit homosexual behaviours. An individual really isn't morally responsible for his own behaviour. It is society that draws the line of what is morally acceptable and those that happen to cross it, at the risk of society, are considered to be immoral, and rightfully so. Well, Masamune, of course it does. Remember the thing to be proven is that not only is biology a factor, but it is the only factor which excludes all other elements from behaviour, including volition. The Greek example suggests social influences on sexual practice. The phenomenon of switching sexual orientation suggests the influence of personal disposition. By quoting your scientific authority, I hope you're not going to go by the basis of BBC archives on insect homosexuality. You're not making a good case for human dignity here. Suppose I were to make the case for sexual cannibalism as a sexual orientation. I am going to go to the supreme court to argue my case thus: Sexual cannibalism is a phenomenon prescribed by genetic coding, passed down from a genetic instinct to provide nutrition for the female partner. It has demonstrably evolved in certain insects, quite independently of humans, such as in certain praying mantuses and specimen of spiders. As a trait of my genetic provenance, I cannot be held morally responsible if I consume my mate after copulation. Plausible, no? Or maybe I just really hated my wife. Who knows.
You're a master of creating straw man arguments, aren't you?
The Greek example of switching sexual orientation suggests nothing because sexual orientation cannot be switched. If I happened to eat my wife, would that mean humans were cannibalistic in nature? Koreasilver was definitely the wiser in not engaging in an argument with you because this is what's truly ridiculous.
And no, I'm not going on the basis of BBC archives on insect homosexuality. This post of yours alone goes to show your ineptitude for the sciences and your extreme lack of understanding in it. But I would start with BBC documentaries (which I'm guessing you already did based on the latter portion of your post) if I were you. I particularly like the NOVA ones, but mainly for the theme song.
Cannibalism is also not as prevalent as homosexuality is in humans, and if you did commit that act with your wife, I would attribute that as being due to a pathological mental nature, which is can be accounted for biologically.
|
On March 20 2011 22:52 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +
An individual really isn't morally responsible for his own behaviour. It is society that draws the line of what is morally acceptable and those that happen to cross it, at the risk of society, are considered to Last edit: 2011-03-20 22:29:00
be immoral, and rightfully so.
So, an individual cannot be immoral, but a society can judge him to be immoral. Am I right on that? I miss the old says, when people who debated could actually see the train wreck coming in front of their noses.
An individual is not intrinsically moral or immoral. These are constructs of society that we place on certain actions that are detrimental. So no, an individual is not morally responsible for his own behaviour, but a society is obligated in making sure that it is protected from certain individuals, and we can define that as being a moral obligation, when in actuality it is an inherent obligation to preserve our society.
I haven't slept in over 24 hours, your train should have already crashed by now, but your good at creating pretty sentences. Nothing you have said is even worth actually addressing. I just felt that if the mods were not going to take you out of the thread, I would make an attempt.
So far you arguments have just been laced in these imaginary constructs of ideals--nothing rooted in reality. At least my arguments have a scientific backing as to why individuals should be treated equal, because we practically are, biologically!
|
Moltke are you Nietzschean ?
Also Masamune i'm not sure that Moltke is the one laced into ideals. I mean you are arguing that people are equal which is undoubtedly untrue.
edit: oh okay you edited to "biologically equals" ( i assume you mean genetically ? ) which is something even more wrong. Just take a look at Usain Bolt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
