RE: Billboard proclaims "Nobody is born gay"
December 12, 2014 at 2:13 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2014 at 2:28 pm by 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.
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.
