Billboard proclaims "Nobody is born gay"

[robvalue]

You can't go "against nature", because whatever happens is nature.

And if you want to bring supernatural bullshit into it, which is screwing around with nature, then you've already abandoned any kind of argument about nature.

[Rob216]

I wasn't born covered in tattoos but I still don't think I should be treated like an asshole for it even though it was a choice.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Chicago is a very gay-positive town. I work directly with openly gay co-workers and live next door to and regularly kibitz with a male same-sex couple. I can clearly see that, as far as gay men are concerned, their sexual orientation largely comes out of an innate biological disposition. I have no more interest in knowing about the physical intimacies of others than I do knowing about what auto insurance they carry. Overall I am tolerant of the LGBTG community, including the traffic disruptions of their annual PRIDE parade. So I do get a little miffed when someone accuses me of bigotry and hate, just because I do not wholeheartedly affirm their beliefs about sexuality or endorse activities I believe are immoral.

It’s not just about sex. I find some of the gluttonous activities of so-called “foodies”, the rage of some activists, the vanity of many celebrities, and my own occasional bouts of envy immoral. Whatever pleasure these sins may provide, they are in no way laudable.

Five years ago, I would have been more sympathetic to many of the counter arguments made above and even some that have not yet been presented. While it is true that people tend to rationalize their biases, sometimes people, like me in this case, change their opinion about what is normative because that is where the logic of their philosophy leads them. I have never been much concerned with gender issues. My primary interest is metaphysics and my overall contention is that ontological naturalism and reductive mechanistic views of human beings create paradoxes and absurdities that are in principle unsolvable without appeal to formal and final causes. Before this thread I have never expressed support for any kind of natural law, largely because I was ignorant of it. Generally I find existential choice more compelling, but it seems that once formal and final causes are admitted as necessary, they led directly, as I now know, to some kind of natural law.

My detractors should be aware that the accusation of rationalizing bias cuts both ways. Can any of my accusers honestly say that they do not reject objective morality in part because to do so would conflict with their political views or preconceived beliefs about sexuality?

Sometimes the truth is convicting and unpleasantly exposes human weaknesses for immoral pleasures. When you are confronted with a rational argument that challenges your lifestyle, do you not, at least sometimes, change course in order to live in accordance with what you have learned? Personally, I love tobacco. I love the smell, the scroll of smoke issuing from the tip of a cigarette, and the flood of relaxation it affords, and the slight warming of my fingertips as the flame reaches its end. Even years later, I still want to smoke, but I do not smoke, because I know, rationally, that it is unhealthy and undermines the natural function of the lungs. If there is a natural order of which human beings partake would it not make sense to seek it out fervently and strive to live in harmony with it, regardless of our personal inclinations?

That's pretty much all I have to say about the issue publicly. If anyone wants to PM me with questions, please feel free to do so.

[Anomalocaris]

Your request is simple enough since 1) I have no prejudice against homosexuals as human beings and 2) my position has rational support.

Anyone, other than ontological naturalists, can see that things are partially defined by their natural functions. Living things are, by their nature, directed toward the things that allow them to sustain life and thrive. For example, the heart is directed toward pumping blood.

Likewise, it is a biological fact that for the human race to exist it must reproduce and that is the natural purpose of the genitalia, i.e. to get semen from the penis into the vagina. The pleasure of copulation and the inordinate strength of the sexual appetites serve to motivate people toward productive union.

Now because human infants are not self-sufficient for years, conjugal love also serves the purpose of strengthening the bond between parents to sustain the children that depend on the family for their mental and material support. These are biological facts.

That people pursue sexual pleasure without consciously thinking about procreation is of no consequence. All that matters is that it is directed toward its proper and natural end. There is nothing inherently wrong with kissing, petting and oral/genital contact to the extent that it increases arousal in preparation for intercourse. Unlike these, the possible transfer of feces and harmful bacteria make sodomy an unsuitable preparation for vaginal intercourse. In addition the structure of the anus made for defecation and is not a suitable receptacle for any foreign object.

People both homosexual and heterosexual engage in practices that go contrary to the function of sexuality and in so doing thwart the natural good. I am not against LGB people specifically because I believe it is just as wrong for heterosexual people to engage in practices, like sodomy, necrophilia, pederasty, and bestiality that are contrary to natural law.

You ever had a blowjob?

His pecker is too firmly gripped in his hairy palm for any willing mouth to fit around it. For him doing that and undoubtedly denying doing that is all part of "natural order".

[Cato]

Can any of my accusers honestly say that they do not reject objective morality in part because to do so would conflict with their political views or preconceived beliefs about sexuality?

Yes. I reject the idea of objective morality for the same reason I reject the idea of god; neither can be demonstrated. What we call ethics today is clearly a human invention; although, some make a strong case for ethics being incubated by evolved pro social instincts that we observe in other primates. My politics are informed by my ethics, not the reverse.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Chicago is a very gay-positive town. I work directly with openly gay co-workers and live next door to and regularly kibitz with a male same-sex couple. I can clearly see that, as far as gay men are concerned, their sexual orientation largely comes out of an innate biological disposition. I have no more interest in knowing about the physical intimacies of others than I do knowing about what auto insurance they carry. Overall I am tolerant of the LGBTG community, including the traffic disruptions of their annual PRIDE parade. So I do get a little miffed when someone accuses me of bigotry and hate, just because I do not wholeheartedly affirm their beliefs about sexuality or endorse activities I believe are immoral.

If you're miffed, that's your own fucking business. Perhaps you'll become a more thoughtful person out of this exchange.

I'm calling you a bigot because you are calling these folk "deficient". You are aspersing their character based on their sexual preference not being the same as yours.

If you don't like being called a bigot, stop acting like one. Take people for who they are, and quit aspersing their morality -- which is what you did when you called their behavior "unethical".

Can any of my accusers honestly say that they do not reject objective morality in part because to do so would conflict with their political views or preconceived beliefs about sexuality?

I reject the idea of objective morality based on the fact that it is found nowhere in humankind. What some consider right, others consider wrong, and what is right sometimes is wrong at other times. So no, this attempt at tu quoque fails, as regards me. I'm certainly flawed, and certainly prone to my own biases, but I don't make the mistake of assigning moral heft to my own opinions simply because I'm unable to conceive that others might not agree.

As for your invitation to take this to PMs, no thanks. I don't clutter up my inbox with debate. If your ideals are worth defending, they're worth defending publicly.

[robvalue]

Just can't admit when you're wrong, can you. You got logic slapped by the whole board, and come out swinging with more nonsense. Lucky for you that you're not gay then, huh Chad.

As to your convoluted tu quo, morals are about wellbeing, health and happiness. If they are about anything else, then it's stupid and pointless. And no, I don't base my morality in such a way as to allow everything I feel the urge to do, sexual or otherwise.

I'd still love to hear how gay sex has any effect on the wellbeing of other people, which is what morality is about. It's not about some invisible arbiter watching everyone and frowning in distaste. That is the standard of a complete idiot.

[abaris]

My detractors should be aware that the accusation of rationalizing bias cuts both ways. Can any of my accusers honestly say that they do not reject objective morality in part because to do so would conflict with their political views or preconceived beliefs about sexuality?

First of all, objective morality is non existent. It's always subjective, based on some invisible code of your favored brand. My standpoint on morality is actually pretty simple. I refrain from doing things that might hurt others. That's it in a nutshell.

If someone follows their inclination without treading on anyone else's toes, who am I to judge? None of my business, as simple as that. The only point where I always jump in is when someone tries to morally judge others because they don't live according to what they believe is right. Sorry to say, but an attitude like that is bigoted. Nobody holds the moral high ground in this game.

Abd for the record, I'm probably not the typical male, but I don't want to see people fucking at all. Be they straight or gay. It's not what turns me on and I never was a fan of hardcore porn. But I don't get all revolted over gay sex either. It doesn't concern me. They should do whatever rocks their boat.

[Jenny A]

Frankly, the reason anti-gays are almost entirely religious, is that practically the only way to reach the conclusion gay sex is sinful is to believe that anything can be morally wrong which does not hurt someone else. For that, you need to declare "objective morality." Funny thing about that objective morality, religious types differ widely over time, place, and religious brand, over just what that objective morality might be. Perhaps for the same reason they differ so widely over what god might be, --- that is because neither objective morality or god exists.

[Nope]

Can any of my accusers honestly say that they do not reject objective morality in part because to do so would conflict with their political views or preconceived beliefs about sexuality?

If there is a natural order of which human beings partake would it not make sense to seek it out fervently and strive to live in harmony with it, regardless of our personal inclinations?

You have to convince us that there is a natural order and what it is. If there is a natural order, I could not go against it because it would not be in my nature to do so.

My rejection of objective morality has nothing to do with sex but I have heard that claim before this thread. If atheists were half as interesting as religious people believe, we'd be doing nothing but having nonstop orgies. LOL