What Gay activists and the media do not understand about morality and choice.

 

Last week’s publication of a survey of hohe relevant scientific literature regarding gender identity and the biological basis if any for homosexuality has reignited the debate over whether homosexuality is a moral choice or an inborn trait analogous to race.  The survey found that there is no conclusive evidence that being gay or transgendered has a genetic origin. The gay rights community has falsely claimed the survey places the burden on those who are skeptical of the claim, as if the burden of proof is on those skeptical of a proposition to disprove the contention rather than the reverse. More importantly, however, even if it were true that sexual preference is genetic, that would not take homosexuality out of the realm of moral debate the way gay activists claim it would.

First, gay activists are trying to flip the burden of proof onto the skeptics. If homosexual preference is the result of some genetic or other physiological process, it is observable. The debate over whether homosexuality is genetic is a physical rather than metaphysical debate. Physical processes and characteristics are observable and predictable.  If no one has yet found some predictable and observable process that results in people having a sexual preference for the same sex, then the default answer is that it homosexuality is not the result of a genetic or physiological phenomenon.  If something can be seen but is not seen, we don’t assume it is there until we see it. So the burden of proof lies with those who claim that sexual preference is somehow genetically driven.

Does this study rule out the possibility that sexual preference could be genetically driven? No it doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative. It may be that every choice is driven by our genes. What this study does do, however, is show that based on the evidence we have there is no reason to believe that it is.

Even if it is someday shown that sexual preference has a genetic cause, that would not mean what gay activists are claiming it means. The entire point of claiming being gay is genetic is to remove homosexuality from the realm of moral debate. The essence of morality is agency. We don’t have moral debates over things which we don’t control.  This is why someone’s physical characteristics like their height or the color of their skin is not the subject of moral debate. A person can’t control or act upon their height or the color of their skin and thus cannot be morally judged for such in any sensible way. The fallacy of the “you can’t help but be homosexual” camp is that it forgets the distinction between preference and action.

Understand by preference, I mean our base physical preferences; those things that for whatever reason give us pleasure or make us happy. I do not mean our choices. In a very real sense “because I preferred it” is always a sensible answer to the question “why did you do that?”.  I do not mean preference in this more abstract sense. Preference in this context is the concrete I like this but don’t like that sense.

When understood in that context, it is obvious that no one can choose any of our preferences. I love rice pudding and loath anise. My wife is just the opposite. Why? Who knows. But even if we did know why, it wouldn’t matter, since neither of us chose to have those preferences.  Could I decide that rice pudding is not worth eating because it makes me fat or because the smell of it puts my wife in a bad mood? Of course I could, but it wouldn’t really change my preference for rice pudding. It would just be me putting my preference to be thin and for my wife to be in a good mood ahead of my preference for rice pudding. Rice pudding would still taste good to me and be something all things being equal I preferred.

That no one controls their preferences is especially true with regard to base physical desires like sex. No one ever wakes up and consciously decides they find a certain body type or sexual act to be desirable. It just happens. Indeed, no matter how unattractive you find a particular body type or how disgusting you find a particular sexual kink, a five second search of the internet will reveal people who find only that body type attractive and that kink to be worth pursuing. None of those people made a conscious choice that those things appealed to them. They just do.

Yet, we still hold people accountable and think that it is acceptable for people to discriminate based upon how someone acts on those preferences. Just because you can’t help but find something desirable does not mean that it is okay to act on that preference.  Whether it is or not is the entire point of moral debate. If people didn’t in some cases find immoral actions to be preferable, there would be no immorality and no reason for moral debate.

One of the unsaid assumptions of this debate is that a personal preference is necessarily a good thing and that if someone prefers something no one has a right to claim that preference is wrong. This is completely false. People prefer and find pleasure in all kinds of immoral and awful things. The gangster Jimmy Burke of Goodfellas fame was said to derive intense pleasure from stealing. Even if he had money that he had made honestly, he preferred to use money he had stolen because the knowledge that it was stolen made spending it that much more desirable. Some people are sadists and derive pleasure from inflicting pain.  You could no doubt give all kinds of psychological explainations for why someone like Burke loved stealing or someone like the Marquis DeSade loved inflicting pain. Those explanations, even if valid, would not change the fact that neither DeSade nor Burke ever made the conscious choice to find such things pleasurable.

This is not to say that all preferences are bad or that homosexuality is the same thing as stealing or sadism. It does, however, show that just because something makes someone happy or is desirable to them doesn’t mean their acting on it is beyond moral question.

Indeed, this is why pedophilia presents such a problem for the gay community. Pedophilia is a sexual preference. In response to gays claiming that they cannot be morally judged because they can’t help their sexual preferences, pedophiles have not unreasonably demanded the same respect. The response of the gay community has been to claim that being gay is not the same as being a pedophile. That of course is true. It also, however, gives away the game. Being gay is not the same as being a pedophile because it doesn’t involve victimizing children and is thus not on the same moral plain as pedophilia.  Saying that, however, places homosexuality into the realm of moral conduct, which defeats the entire purpose of claiming that being gay is genetic.

So, it doesn’t matter if the elusive “gay gene” is found. That won’t mean anything that we don’t already know; namely that people don’t consciously choose what at a base level appeals to them.  People can’t help it that they are attracted to others of the same sex. Since no one chooses what appeals to them, that doesn’t make being “gay” any different than not liking to get up early in the morning or liking bread pudding and no anise or any other preference.

Moreover, the claim that because gays cannot help that they are attracted to the same sex means that being gay is like the color of someone’s skin rather than like every other preference is profoundly dehumanizing to gays. I can’t help it I like attractive women in their 20s. If I act on that preference, however, my wife is still justified in divorcing me and my boss, if he is a moralizer, can still fire me because adulterers are not a protected class. Just because I prefer something doesn’t mean I am compelled to act on that preference such that doing so is just some kind of immutable part of who I am and beyond moral judgement. To say otherwise is to deny my moral agency and reduce me to the level of an animal. Taken on its face, gays are dehumanizing themselves  with this argument.

The argument that being gay is genetic probably shouldn’t be taken at face value. Gays who make this argument do not view themselves as dehumanized animals that cannot be expected to have moral agency. Instead, gays are disguising a moral argument as a scientific one.

The purpose behind the claim that sexual preference is genetic is to compel the government to legislate morality. Many people rightly or wrongly find homosexuality to be morally objectionable. Others, find it morally acceptable. The second group wants the government to legally compel its moral view onto the other side. The gay rights community and its supporters do not admit this fact however because admitting it would require both admitting that they intend to legislate morality (something they falsely claim only the other side does) and engaging in an honest debate over the morality of homosexuality (something they consider to be beneath them).  Instead, they hide their moral claims in scientific claims and the language of race and civil rights.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 212 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    At this point, gay people have stopped asking for permission to exist. This argument is from five years ago.  I dont know if this is good or bad (I think it’s good) but there where we are at The moment. Iow, the question may be pressing to you – fair enough – but to us? Not so much. How did we get here?

    • #1
  2. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    I don’t know too many people who simply say “being gay is genetic,” or at least, not as a proposition in itself —that is, it may be shorthand for a more complicated nature/nurture argument.

    One thing that helped me understand this was when a biologist friend of mine talked about all the factors that can affect a developing fetus that aren’t “genetic” in the sense of being written into the original DNA, but they aren’t “nurture” in the sense that we understand the word (how Mum potty-trained you, whether Dad was cold and aloof, etc). Which genes express themselves and how they express themselves are affected by a whole lot of factors.

    For example, let’s say that depression/bipolar runs in the family—there is a genetic component to the illness. One of the factors that may determine whether or not the gene is expressed is whether the mother is under stress. Babies born to mothers who were pregnant during the last year of the German occupation in Holland were disproportionately likely to grow up suffering from these mental illnesses, along with other illnesses known to be affected by stress, or more precisely, by the effects of stress-induced maternal neurochemistry on the fetus’ developing body.

    Similar pre-natal phenomena, though in bewildering profusion, some “planned” by the DNA, some gleefully random—must conspire to create not just depressed people but joyful ones, not just gays, straights but foot fetishists, celibates, rapists, rice-pudding lovers, van Gogh and Michael Phelps.

    Add in all the various forces extra-uterine life brings to bear, and what you end up with is always going to be a whole lot more complicated than “it’s genetic.”

    That’s why “it’s genetic” or rather “it’s natural” isn’t much of an argument, as you correctly point out, for the morality of any given variation in human behavior. We’re all products of genes, nature, nurture and Lord Knows Whatall. It is our task, as human beings, to figure out whats moral and what isn’t.

    The basic criterion, surely, is “it hurts someone.”

    • #2
  3. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Zafar:


    At this point, gay people have stopped asking for permission to exist. This argument is from five years ago. I dont know if this is good or bad (I think it’s good) but there where we are at The moment. Iow, the question may be pressing to you – fair enough – but to us? Not so much. How did we get here?

    It should be pressing to anyone, gay or straight, who cares about religious freedom. The government legislating that gays must be morally accepted is a direct assault on freedom of conscience and religion.

    • #3
  4. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Zafar:


    At this point, gay people have stopped asking for permission to exist. This argument is from five years ago. I dont know if this is good or bad (I think it’s good) but there where we are at The moment. Iow, the question may be pressing to you – fair enough – but to us? Not so much. How did we get here?

    And no one gives you permission to exist. They do not however owe you acceptance. You are free to do as you like and everyone else is free to think what they will about that fact and treat  you accordingly.

    • #4
  5. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Kate Braestrup: It is our task, as human beings, to figure out whats moral and what isn’t.

    Is this an individual or a collective task?

    • #5
  6. Herbert Member
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    John Kluge: The purpose behind the claim that sexual preference is genetic is to compel the government to legislate morality. Many people rightly or wrongly find homosexuality to be morally objectionable. Others, find it morally acceptable. The second group wants the government to legally compel its moral view onto the other side. The gay rights community and its supporters do not admit this fact however because admitting it would require both admitting that they intend to legislate morality (something they falsely claim only the other side does) and engaging in an honest debate over the morality of homosexuality (something they consider to be beneath them). Instead, they hide their moral claims in scientific claims and the language of race and civil rights.

    I’ve always thought that it was wrong to emphasize the genetic determination of gayness, and then make the argument that you shouldn’t be discriminated against because it is genetic.  The argument should have always been based on what is moral and just for a free society.   Left handedness hasn’t been proven to be genetic, a persons religion isn’t genetic.  Yet the argument is that in a just and free society we don’t make these things illegal, we don’t impose marriage restrictions on people because of their religion or whether they are a leftie or rightie.

    • #6
  7. Herbert Member
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    “Many people rightly or wrongly find homosexuality to be morally objectionable. Others, find it morally acceptable. The second group wants the government to legally compel its moral view onto the other side.”

    yeah one side is using government to make gay sex illegal, gay marriage illegal, ability to fire, hire,  let housing to gays based on their orientation legal,  denying gays the ability to adopt.   The other side is trying to use government to get laws that allow for the above.   So yes both sides are attempting to impose their moral view.

    • #7
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Herbert:“Many people rightly or wrongly find homosexuality to be morally objectionable. Others, find it morally acceptable. The second group wants the government to legally compel its moral view onto the other side.”

    yeah one side is using government to make gay sex illegal, gay marriage illegal, ability to fire, hire, let housing to gays based on their orientation legal, denying gays the ability to adopt. The other side is trying to use government to get laws that allow for the above. So yes both sides are attempting to impose their moral view.

    In a society where individual liberty is the highest good, isn’t it necessary to make a distinction between what is legal (which will apply to all, except Clintons) and what is moral (where there may exist differing views among ‘individuals’)? And, as another example, discrimination (exercising preference) by individuals for whatever reasons is an individual right, but the same act by government or by private players operating with some government touch should likely be illegal.

    • #8
  9. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    The lamest articles written by liberal journalists all begin the same way: “A new study has found…”  Who is “the study” by? How much knowledge do they have? What about all the other studies that disagree? They skip over that.

    Now we’ve got the Right doing it too.

    Have you ever seen anyone on Ricochet claim there’s a gay gene? Me neither. I’ve seen plenty of evidence with my own eyes that it’s not a choice, other than for maybe a few art school girls trying to pass as lesbian until graduation.

    We “can’t debate the morality”? We did that for decades. The good guys won. The author has a right to his OP. Of course we don’t have to accept it or the viewpoint that goes with it.

    Anybody here remember the moment when they made the big decision to adopt a heterosexual “lifestyle”? Nobody ever seems to.

    • #9
  10. Herbert Member
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    Bob Thompson:

    Herbert:“Many people rightly or wrongly find homosexuality to be morally objectionable. Others, find it morally acceptable. The second group wants the government to legally compel its moral view onto the other side.”

    yeah one side is using government to make gay sex illegal, gay marriage illegal, ability to fire, hire, let housing to gays based on their orientation legal, denying gays the ability to adopt. The other side is trying to use government to get laws that allow for the above. So yes both sides are attempting to impose their moral view.

    In a society where individual liberty is the highest good, isn’t it necessary to make a distinction between what is legal (which will apply to all, except Clintons) and what is moral (where there may exist differing views among ‘individuals’)? And, as another example, discrimination (exercising preference) by individuals for whatever reasons is an individual right, but the same act by government or by private players operating with some government touch should likely be illegal.

    Bob this is one of the tough issues for me.  In theory I agree with you,    But in practice, I’m not convinced that it wouldn’t lead to Balkanization more instability and violence.

    • #10
  11. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    Gary McVey:The lamest articles written by liberal journalists all begin the same way: “A new study has found…” Who is “the study” by? How much knowledge do they have? What about all the other studies that disagree? They skip over that.

    Now we’ve got the Right doing it too.

    Have you ever seen anyone on Ricochet claim there’s a gay gene? Me neither. I’ve seen plenty of evidence with my own eyes that it’s not a choice, other than for maybe a few art school girls trying to pass as lesbian until graduation.

    We “can’t debate the morality”? We did that for decades. The good guys won. The author has a right to his OP. Of course we don’t have to accept it or the viewpoint that goes with it.

    Anybody here remember the moment when they made the big decision to adopt a heterosexual “lifestyle”? Nobody ever seems to.

    Don’t let your preferences prejudge this post.

    • #11
  12. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    John Kluge:

    Zafar:


    At this point, gay people have stopped asking for permission to exist. This argument is from five years ago. I dont know if this is good or bad (I think it’s good) but there where we are at The moment. Iow, the question may be pressing to you – fair enough – but to us? Not so much. How did we get here?

    And no one gives you permission to exist. They do not however owe you acceptance. You are free to do as you like and everyone else is free to think what they will about that fact and treat you accordingly.

    Oh, is that what the post meant? Then we agree, provided “treat you accordingly” doesn’t mean “harm you.”

    I’m with Gary; it’s better now, even if I agree about the importance of protecting the cake bakers’ religious liberty and the needlessness of the fuss about transgender bathrooms.

    • #12
  13. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Z in MT:

    Gary McVey:The lamest articles written by liberal journalists all begin the same way: “A new study has found…” Who is “the study” by? How much knowledge do they have? What about all the other studies that disagree? They skip over that.

    Now we’ve got the Right doing it too.

    Have you ever seen anyone on Ricochet claim there’s a gay gene? Me neither. I’ve seen plenty of evidence with my own eyes that it’s not a choice, other than for maybe a few art school girls trying to pass as lesbian until graduation.

    We “can’t debate the morality”? We did that for decades. The good guys won. The author has a right to his OP. Of course we don’t have to accept it or the viewpoint that goes with it.

    Anybody here remember the moment when they made the big decision to adopt a heterosexual “lifestyle”? Nobody ever seems to.

    Don’t let your preferences prejudge this post.

    I didn’t prejudge it; I judged it! Yeah, it’s true, I have a preference for posts that ring truer than this one. I think Zafar knows more about this subject than the rest of us, including the author of the OP.

    • #13
  14. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Mostly well said.  I suspect you and I disagree a great deal on this, so congrats for having written this long on the subject without making my head explode.

    Nonetheless, I think the genetic question is something of a strawman.  Being gay may or may not have a genetic component.  There’s some evidence for it from identical twin studies, but nothing dispositive.  Most people who know anything about the subject know this.  What being gay is not, as you seem to acknowledge, is chosen.

    I think that fact is morally relevant.  But I agree with you that it’s not dispositive.  I also agree that we can morally condemn behaviors even if they are in large part a product of an unchosen or even genetic personal characteristic or condition.

    Pedophilia, as you point out, is almost certainly no more chosen than homosexuality, yet we consider it morally abhorrent to act on it.  Left handedness is also no more chosen, and we consider it morally trivial to act on it.

    So it appears we have to look beyond “chosenness” to evaluate the moral character of an act.  My own line of demarcation is — does it hurt anybody?  That distinguishes adult, consensual homosexual acts from sex with a child.  It also distinguishes adult, consensual heterosexual acts from sex with a child.

    So to me the morally relevant fact — in either case — is the child — not the sex of the parties to the sexual act.

    • #14
  15. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Herbert:

    OP:   “Many people rightly or wrongly find homosexuality to be morally objectionable. Others, find it morally acceptable. The second group wants the government to legally compel its moral view onto the other side.”

    yeah one side is using government to make gay sex illegal, gay marriage illegal, ability to fire, hire, let housing to gays based on their orientation legal, denying gays the ability to adopt. The other side is trying to use government to get laws that allow for the above. So yes both sides are attempting to impose their moral view.

    We have had a change of culture.

    America used to be conservative, and used to be guided by traditional Christian views.  Most states had laws that made sodomy illegal.   The Left worked for many years to get Christians to take a tolerant position, gradually getting most of the sodomy laws repealed.  Until the Supreme Court overturned all the remaining ones by decree.

    The Left is still gloating and running victory laps.   Several blue states made homosexuals a protected class, and are now using anti-discrimination laws to force Christians to participate in celebrations of homosexuality.

    So, not “both sides are attempting to impose their moral view” but, rather, first one side, and now the other.
    My problem is that the blue states are now dismantling the free exercise of religion.  I do not believe that our Supreme Court will side with the Constitution and against the Leftists.

    • #15
  16. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Gary McVey:…

    Have you ever seen anyone on Ricochet claim there’s a gay gene? Me neither.

    Yes, as a matter of fact, I did see that.  It has been a couple of years ago now.  We quarreled for many pages on this issue.

    I’ve seen plenty of evidence with my own eyes that it’s not a choice

    But that evidence is evidence that misunderstands how genetic expression works.

    There may or may not be a gene that is primarily responsible for same-sex attraction (I bet there are more than one).  If so, this gene does not work directly, like the genetic controls for skin color or eye color.

    It turns out that many genes control several aspects of organism development, and there are different ways that the controls can be set.  The settings can depend on a lot of different effects that are not genetic but affect how the gene gets set to express its controls.

    Some of the known ways that affect genetic expression, or a different but similar complication called epigenetics, are:  whether the mother was malnourished as a child, or during adolescence, or during pregnancy; whether the mother suffered chilblains during pregnancy, whether the mother was exposed to certain chemicals, during certain critical weeks of pregnancy, and so on.   There is a short list so far, but it is expected to eventually be a long list as the science of genetics advances.

    • #16
  17. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    There are a few researchers who want to find out if genetic proclivity can be triggered by certain sorts of environmental factors as a child grows up.

    For example, it has been suggested that parental neglect, or parental quarreling, or long periods of parental absences could cause a genetic proclivity to get triggered.   There is some evidence, in fact, that getting sexually molested as a child, at particular ages, can trigger expressed genetic proclivities to assert greater effects on the child’s brain.

    All this research is pretty new stuff, and there are a lot more theories than real information.

    The problem is, this is such a controversial field that research is inhibited.

    • #17
  18. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Gary McVey:The lamest articles written by liberal journalists all begin the same way: “A new study has found…” Who is “the study” by? How much knowledge do they have? What about all the other studies that disagree? They skip over that.

    Now we’ve got the Right doing it too.

    There are very few studies that can be used.   I have not read the particulars of this new study, but two years ago I read a bunch of them.  They could all be criticized on scientific grounds.

    The main problems were small sample sizes (two or three dozen subjects were common numbers), selection bias (the difficulty of finding homosexual participants who were not going to give the responses that they thought would help their movement), and compromised controls (letting the subjects know too much about what the researchers were trying to learn).

    The small sample size problem, in particular, is a serious obstacle.  All these problems, plus other methodological shortcomings, apply to both sides of the research so far.

    It is only since the big hoo-hah over Mark Regnerus’s study about kids of gay couples that some think tanks have started funding research on the right side of this divide.

    It does not help science to have the left camp and the right camp when it comes to research.  We are there because the Left so clearly made neutrality on the part of the researchers impossible.

    • #18
  19. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Cato Rand:Mostly well said. I suspect you and I disagree a great deal on this, so congrats for having written this long on the subject without making my head explode.

    Nonetheless, I think the genetic question is something of a strawman. Being gay may or may not have a genetic component. There’s some evidence for it from identical twin studies, but nothing dispositive. Most people who know anything about the subject know this. What being gay is not, as you seem to acknowledge, is chosen.

    I think it is fair to say that there are both hereditary and environmental factors at play.

    The genetic factors have turned out to be very subtle.   Little is known so far.   At first glance, this new study simply rules out the most direct genetic pathways, but does not rule out heredity as a factor.

    The science is still very unclear.   And, due to the cultural controversy, it will take an extra long time to resolve the scientific questions.

    • #19
  20. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    Cato Rand:…

    I think that fact is morally relevant. But I agree with you that it’s not dispositive. I also agree that we can morally condemn behaviors even if they are in large part a product of an unchosen or even genetic personal characteristic or condition.

    Pedophilia, as you point out, is almost certainly no more chosen than homosexuality, yet we consider it morally abhorrent to act on it. Left handedness is also no more chosen, and we consider it morally trivial to act on it.

    So it appears we have to look beyond “chosenness” to evaluate the moral character of an act. My own line of demarcation is — does it hurt anybody? That distinguishes adult, consensual homosexual acts from sex with a child. It also distinguishes adult, consensual heterosexual acts from sex with a child.

    So to me the morally relevant fact — in either case — is the child — not the sex of the parties to the sexual act.

    I have a different demarcation.  I have a moral viewpoint that is informed by Biblical moral teachings.  I view homosexual sex as a self-destructive behavior, because it has spiritual consequences.

    • #20
  21. MJBubba Member
    MJBubba
    @

    The spiritual issue with homosexual sex is that it puts one on a spiritual path that leads away from G-d.

    I wish I could persuade my homosexual friends that G-d exists, and that Jesus is G-d.

    It will soon be illegal in the blue states for me to say this publicly.

    • #21
  22. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    MJBubba:

    Cato Rand:Mostly well said. I suspect you and I disagree a great deal on this, so congrats for having written this long on the subject without making my head explode.

    Nonetheless, I think the genetic question is something of a strawman. Being gay may or may not have a genetic component. There’s some evidence for it from identical twin studies, but nothing dispositive. Most people who know anything about the subject know this. What being gay is not, as you seem to acknowledge, is chosen.

    I think it is fair to say that there are both hereditary and environmental factors at play.

    The genetic factors have turned out to be very subtle. Little is known so far. At first glance, this new study simply rules out the most direct genetic pathways, but does not rule out heredity as a factor.

    The science is still very unclear. And, due to the cultural controversy, it will take an extra long time to resolve the scientific questions.

    As long as you don’t tell me it’s a “choice”, I’m fine with honest research trying to explore the causes of the differences among us.

    • #22
  23. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    MJBubba:

    Cato Rand:…

    I think that fact is morally relevant. But I agree with you that it’s not dispositive. I also agree that we can morally condemn behaviors even if they are in large part a product of an unchosen or even genetic personal characteristic or condition.

    Pedophilia, as you point out, is almost certainly no more chosen than homosexuality, yet we consider it morally abhorrent to act on it. Left handedness is also no more chosen, and we consider it morally trivial to act on it.

    So it appears we have to look beyond “chosenness” to evaluate the moral character of an act. My own line of demarcation is — does it hurt anybody? That distinguishes adult, consensual homosexual acts from sex with a child. It also distinguishes adult, consensual heterosexual acts from sex with a child.

    So to me the morally relevant fact — in either case — is the child — not the sex of the parties to the sexual act.

    I have a different demarcation. I have a moral viewpoint that is informed by Biblical moral teachings. I view homosexual sex as a self-destructive behavior, because it has spiritual consequences.

    I’m aware of your view.  But I don’t share it and I don’t think the state should act on it.  Slightly stronger, I don’t think the state is constitutionally empowered to act on it.

    • #23
  24. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Herbert:

    Bob Thompson:

    Herbert:“Many people rightly or wrongly find homosexuality to be morally objectionable. Others, find it morally acceptable. The second group wants the government to legally compel its moral view onto the other side.”

    yeah one side is using government to make gay sex illegal, gay marriage illegal, ability to fire, hire, let housing to gays based on their orientation legal, denying gays the ability to adopt. The other side is trying to use government to get laws that allow for the above. So yes both sides are attempting to impose their moral view.

    In a society where individual liberty is the highest good, isn’t it necessary to make a distinction between what is legal (which will apply to all, except Clintons) and what is moral (where there may exist differing views among ‘individuals’)? And, as another example, discrimination (exercising preference) by individuals for whatever reasons is an individual right, but the same act by government or by private players operating with some government touch should likely be illegal.

    Bob this is one of the tough issues for me. In theory I agree with you, But in practice, I’m not convinced that it wouldn’t lead to Balkanization more instability and violence.

    Will you elaborate what you mean by Balkanization?  What specifics lead to instability and violence?

    • #24
  25. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    John Kluge:

    Zafar:


    At this point, gay people have stopped asking for permission to exist. This argument is from five years ago. I dont know if this is good or bad (I think it’s good) but there where we are at The moment. Iow, the question may be pressing to you – fair enough – but to us? Not so much. How did we get here?

    It should be pressing to anyone, gay or straight, who cares about religious freedom. The government legislating that gays must be morally accepted is a direct assault on freedom of conscience and religion.

    The Govt can legislate behavior in the public square, but that’s not the same as legislating morality.

    • #25
  26. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    MJ’s right that kneejerk groupthink is bad for science, and in this field there have been aggressive efforts to shut down neutral investigation. As usual his arguments are calm and reasonable: the sample sizes so far are small, and he wins points by acknowledging that this is still true on both sides.

    His citing Biblical authority can’t be denied; we know what the book says, and MJ is guided by it everywhere else in his life. There’s no hypocrisy there. For people who are nonbelievers, or believers who are not Bible literalists or fundamentalists, it’s not going to be enough of a reason to take any attitude towards homosexuality.

    • #26
  27. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    MJBubba:

    Cato Rand:…

    I think that fact is morally relevant. But I agree with you that it’s not dispositive. I also agree that we can morally condemn behaviors even if they are in large part a product of an unchosen or even genetic personal characteristic or condition.

    Pedophilia, as you point out, is almost certainly no more chosen than homosexuality, yet we consider it morally abhorrent to act on it. Left handedness is also no more chosen, and we consider it morally trivial to act on it.

    So it appears we have to look beyond “chosenness” to evaluate the moral character of an act. My own line of demarcation is — does it hurt anybody? That distinguishes adult, consensual homosexual acts from sex with a child. It also distinguishes adult, consensual heterosexual acts from sex with a child.

    So to me the morally relevant fact — in either case — is the child — not the sex of the parties to the sexual act.

    I have a different demarcation. I have a moral viewpoint that is informed by Biblical moral teachings. I view homosexual sex as a self-destructive behavior, because it has spiritual consequences.

    Because I also view homosexual sex as self-destructive behavior, the new push to favor homosexual sex will harm many people by encouraging them to engage in such self-destructive behavior.

    • #27
  28. Herbert Member
    Herbert
    @Herbert

    MJBubba:

    Full Size Tabby:

    I have a different demarcation. I have a moral viewpoint that is informed by Biblical moral teachings. I view homosexual sex as a self-destructive behavior, because it has spiritual consequences.

    Because I also view homosexual sex as self-destructive behavior, the new push to favor homosexual sex will harm many people by encouraging them to engage in such self-destructive behavior.

    So how should government set policy when it come to conflicting moral views… in this case on homosexuality?  What should be the principles?

    • #28
  29. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Zafar:

    John Kluge:

    Zafar:


    At this point, gay people have stopped asking for permission to exist. This argument is from five years ago. I dont know if this is good or bad (I think it’s good) but there where we are at The moment. Iow, the question may be pressing to you – fair enough – but to us? Not so much. How did we get here?

    It should be pressing to anyone, gay or straight, who cares about religious freedom. The government legislating that gays must be morally accepted is a direct assault on freedom of conscience and religion.

    The Govt can legislate behavior in the public square, but that’s not the same as legislating morality.

    It is absolutely the same. Sorry but “you can think that but just no act on it” is legislating morality. Morality is meaningless if it doesn’t translate into action.

    • #29
  30. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Note:

    Personal attack on a fellow member. Also, rather than tell someone to "stop commenting," you could invite them to re-read your post.

    Gary McVey:The lamest articles written by liberal journalists all begin the same way: “A new study has found…” Who is “the study” by? How much knowledge do they have? What about all the other studies that disagree? They skip over that.

    Now we’ve got the Right doing it too.

    Have you ever seen anyone on Ricochet claim there’s a gay gene? Me neither. I’ve seen plenty of evidence with my own eyes that it’s not a choice, other than for maybe a few art school girls trying to pass as lesbian until graduation.

    We “can’t debate the morality”? We did that for decades. The good guys won. The author has a right to his OP. Of course we don’t have to accept it or the viewpoint that goes with it.

    Anybody here remember the moment when they made the big decision to adopt a heterosexual “lifestyle”? Nobody ever seems to.

    Do me a favor and try understanding the post. You have seen evidence that the preference, like all preferences is not a choice. The entire rest of the post explains why that is a meaningless assertion.

    Frankly, you should stay away from debating morality. You clearly lack the reasoning skills to do so. Stop commenting on posts that you don’t understand.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.