PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Homosexuality isn't biological

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Echelon

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ugh, this is actually worse than the forum I came from when I spotted it in Google...

First of all, I've been "out" as a homosexual male for four years. One thing that I don't need is some punk, who isn't even homosexual themselves, telling me that I chose to be this way. Not to say that it's bad, I think that it's one of the best things in the world (Not having to consort with women).

The biggest qualm I have with the theory that homosexuality is a choice is that you can't choose to change "back" to heterosexuality.

From a closer overview of the topic, I can see that a lot of LuckyGal's opinions are similar to those that were defeated by the majority of the APA. Twice. No matter how many times they are told that they can't prove their opinion, they'll continue to state it as a fact...

(Edited by Echelon 1/29/2005 at 05:11 AM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 04:51 AM on January 29, 2005 | IP
masuba

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from LuckyGal at 3:39 PM on March 5, 2004 :
The common misconception about homosexuality is that it is somehow simply biological, making it completely normal and acceptable.


The most popular misconception about sexual ethics is that we can somehow decide what is objectively good and bad simply by looking into "Nature". One of the most important gifts of the philosophy of enlightenment to contemporary ethical thought is the principle that morality cannot be deduced from natural facts. In other words, we cannot receive information about what is morally sound and unsound simply by looking into our genetic make-up or into the behavioural patterns prevalent among animals. If we actually did try and decide between moral and immoral conduct by looking at natural facts, we would have to blindly accept such perfectly natural behaviours as violence and rape.

Another interesting fallacy in LuckyGals moral logic has to do with the concept of nature itself. "Nature" is a purely conceptual entity which has no objective existence outside language. There is nothing in the external reality outside our knowledge system which could be objectively isolatet and dubbed as "naturalness". Thus, that which is concidered natural always and inevitably results from culturally and historically specific values, which are subject to modification in the course of time.

The concept of "naturalness" is only valuable in scientific discourse in which it is used in an ideologically neutral manner to refer, simply, to that which occurs in the real world outside language. That which is "natural" is simply that which occurs spontaneously in the world, unaffected by human conceptualisation. (Another discussion altogether is wheter anything at all can be proven to be unaffected by the way we as human beings conceptualise it). Same-sex behaviour occurs naturally among hundreds of species in addition to our own, so same-sex conduct is pretty much natural in that respect.

But what makes homosexuality morally acceptable is not the above mentioned fact about its natural occurrence. Moral ideas must be justified in more elaborate ways than that, and to say that homosexuality is moral because it is natural would be to succumb into the same biologistic moral fallacy as LuckyGal. As opposed to pointing to Nature in search for justification, I propose we instead point to actual same-sex conduct itself and show that it occurs in myriad unrelated ways in the world. Same-sex relations cannot be condemned categorically because it cannot be objectively shown that all, or even most, instances of same-sex conduct have humanely negative consequences.

Also, instead of emphasising some imagined global unity of "gay identity," we should really strive to indicate the actual diversity of homosexual experience in the world at large. In this way we can effectively refute moralistic views, which present homosexuality as a monolithic entity which can be objectively condemned as bad.

 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 07:49 AM on March 4, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.