The Real Face of the Homosexual "Rights" Movement

[_Droopy]

Except Mormonism is a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality is biologically dictated.

1. Not a shred of empirical science exists to justify this claim (but we are now in the age of consensus ("postnormal") science, not empirical science, so this is perhaps a moot point.

2. Thank you for being honest and clear in your articulation of the classic, long held biological essentialist/reductionist position of the homosexual rights movement and the cultural Left that aids and abets it. Please send the memo to Delusion.

[_EAllusion]

All choices are biologically dictated in that the body is the substrate through which choice happens. A person being a Mormon is all neurons sending action potentials just the same.

[_Droopy]

And the Bible never stops being pro-slavery. It's a clear theme in the Bible that God is A-Ok with slavery.

You might actually try reading the texts (the Bible) you would have us believe you know something about. The Bible takes no position on slavery at all, but simply accepts it as a normative aspect of the social milieu in which it exists. The gospel is freely available to all, both male and female, young and old, bond and free. The Bible is not "pro-slavery," but quite simply neutral on the subject. This makes perfect sense when one realizes that Jesus Christ was not a political social revolutionary, and had no intention of overturning the existing social/cultural system under which he lived (there is no critique whatsoever of the Roman conquest and occupation of Judea and Palestine in the New Testament. Nor does Jesus or his apostles ever call for the creation of a "welfare state," centering all charity and giving of alms in the individual and his desire to give and sacrifice for others).

Homosexuality is a footnote compared to how consistently Ok slavery in the Bible is, yet there is no equivalent movement to repeal the 13th amendment among religious righters.

Since the consequences of persisting in homosexual behavior and lifestyles throughout one's life, and procrastinating repentance of this sin until death separates the spirit from the body, is an interview with the Man in the Red Suit, I would hardly term it a "footnote."

What Savage is calling for...

What this intellectual thug is calling for is the complete abandonment and/or relativization of the concept of "morality" in search of the legitimization of his deeply embedded personal sexual fetishes and mutated "sexual orientation."

There is no reason whatsoever to stop society, turn it upside down, and redefine core civilizational traditions and principles for the benefit of 1% to 3% of the population who demand their highly ideosyncratic psycho-sexual preferences and perceptions be made the defining template for that of the entire culture.

Juvenile, self absorbed exhibitionistic intellectual terrorists like Savage should simply be ignored when they act out in public, and we should continue with a serious, adult discussion of homosexuality and its dynamics irregardless of their antics.

[_Buffalo]

Except Mormonism is a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality is biologically dictated.

1. Not a shred of empirical science exists to justify this claim (but we are now in the age of consensus ("postnormal") science, not empirical science, so this is perhaps a moot point.

2. Thank you for being honest and clear in your articulation of the classic, long held biological essentialist/reductionist position of the homosexual rights movement and the cultural Left that aids and abets it. Please send the memo to Delusion.

You've been shown mountains of empirical evidence that homosexuality is inborn. You've ignored all of it. When CFR'd for peer reviewed studies backing up your "homosexuality is a choice and can be reversed" claims, you ran away with your tail between your legs.

It's time to face up to who you really are, Droopy. You can run away from us, but you can't run away from yourself.

[_Droopy]

All choices are biologically dictated in that the body is the substrate through which choice happens. A person being a Mormon is all neurons sending action potentials just the same.

1. What is the core, or ontological basis, of the choice that is manifested through the organism (does choice originate in the "neurons sending action potentials" or is it centered in some other phenomena?

If the body is only a "substrate" through which choice is manifest, then what is the origin of choice itself?

2. If your claim is taken as it stands, then it must be true of all philosophical, political, and theoretical scientific beliefs systems whatever. This means that both your views and mine regarding homosexuality are nothing more than the manifestation, or epiphenomena, of brain chemistry and physiology, which means that each can be seen as equally legitimate - and equally relative and arbitrary - with respect to the other.

2. This is naked, unalloyed 19th century positivsm/reductionism, and is rife with so many philosophical and scientific problems that where to even start wholly escapes me, but the questions above should suffice for the present.

[_EAllusion]

You might actually try reading the texts (the Bible) you would have us believe you know something about.

I'm sure I've read the Bible more frequently, with more detail, and with more background resources than you Droopy. There are several here I wouldn't be comfortable saying that to, but you certainly are not one of them.

The Bible is not "pro-slavery," but quite simply neutral on the subject.

The Bible makes it clear that slavery is a morally permissible, occasionally commanded by God, act so long as it exists within the bounds of proper slave practice. If you want to call that neutrality, go for it. It agrees with the position I expressed in the post I am quoting. The United States, unfortunately, contravenes this Biblical position and outlaws it. Religious righters are really dropping the ball by not fighting the 13th amendment. To spend so much time and effort on the issue of homosexuals is highly disproportionate to their alleged basis for thinking what they do and often consistent. As Savage says, they should just move on as religious people have been able to do on many other subjects like slavery. Happily, that's exactly what's happening.

What this intellectual thug is calling for is the complete abandonment and/or relativization of the concept of "morality"

He's an advice columnist who spends his entire profession thinking about right and wrong behavior and offering advice on it. You just call any moral position you disagree with "relativism." He's also done far more good for the world than you could hope to.

[_Droopy]

You've been shown mountains of empirical evidence that homosexuality is inborn. You've ignored all of it.

No such empirical evidence exists, and I suspect that you know it as well as I know it. Whether you are just "lying for the cause" now or whether you are actually so stupefyingly ignorant of the actual state of the brain science relative to this - and the vast leaps of inference required to make the "born that way" argument from the tiny shards of suggestive evidence regarding biological variables in the genesis of SSA - is of really no interest to me at this point.

CFR'd for peer reviewed studies backing up your "homosexuality is a choice and can be reversed" claims, you ran away with your tail between your legs.

I've been providing peer reviewed/expert analysis of this issue in this forum since this board appeared online. Start paying attention.

In any event, the very idea that peer reviewed studies in the brain sciences/genetics is, or has the ability to discern a discreet, identifiable "cause" of SSA is risible, at best, and bespeaks a facile reductionist metaphysics that more often than not goes unquestioned while its fundamental premises are asserted as if they were facts.

[_EAllusion]

What is the core, or ontological basis, of the choice that is manifested through the organism (does choice originate in the "neurons sending action potentials" or is it centered in some other phenomena?

I'm not even sure what you are asking. But all "choice" happens to be is an option being selected, which is explainable computationally through biological processes. That's not the hard part of phil of mind.

of brain chemistry and physiology, which means that each can be seen as equally legitimate - and equally relative and arbitrary - with respect to the other.

No, that's not accurate. Physicalism does not imply that propositions lack knowable truth-value. If you want to spell out an argument to the contrary, I'll be happy to explain what's wrong with it.

2. This is naked, unalloyed 19th century positivsm/reductionism,

Please explain how physicalism, the predominant view right now, is 19th century positivism - a viewpoint that has been dead for over a hundred years - a view that was long-dead when it was modified and updated for the now also dead logical positivist movement in the 20th century.

[_Buffalo]

In any event, the very idea that peer reviewed studies in the brain sciences/genetics is, or has the ability to discern a discreet, identifiable "cause" of SSA is risible, at best, and bespeaks a facile reductionist metaphysics that more often than not goes unquestioned while its fundamental premises are asserted as if they were facts.

You're moving the goal posts, as expected. There are likely many factors that work together in giving rise to homosexuality. Asking for a single discreet cause is a strawman. The fact that it's biological is not in question. The only question is, what are all the causes of homosexuality, and how do they work together.

Your ability to misuse the thesaurus does not, in fact, make up for your inability to find credible science to back your anti-gay bigotry. Just so you know.

[_Droopy]

The Bible makes it clear that slavery is a morally permissible, occasionally commanded by God, act so long as it exists within the bounds of proper slave practice. If you want to call that neutrality, go for it.

The Old Testament may so do. The New Testament does not.

It agrees with the position I expressed in the post I am quoting. The United States, unfortunately, contravenes this Biblical position and outlaws it. Religious righters are really dropping the ball by not fighting the 13th amendment.

This sophistry is actually worthy of Darth J. U.S. law and moral views do not contravene "the biblical position" as the Old Testament law and society was fulfilled and done away in Christ. That was, indeed, a harsh law for a harsh and barbaric people the Lord was trying to forge and purge so that it could move beyond that level. The "biblical position" with which modern Christians are concerned is the New Testament position, which takes no position on slavery at all, but simply accepts it as part of the sociocultural milieu within which it finds itself (as it accepts Roman occupation and thoroughly non-democratic political rule) and attempts to function within those constraints and under those conditions.

To spend so much time and effort on the issue of homosexuals is highly disproportionate to their alleged basis for thinking what they do and often consistent. As Savage says, they should just move on as religious people have been able to do on many other subjects like slavery. Happily, that's exactly what's happening.

The only folks obsessed with homosexuality, and with sex qua sex, is the secular/humanist Left. Without the sexual revolution of the sixties and the totemization of human sexuality, in endless variety (the noble and lofty polymorphous perversity) as the sine qua non of human existence, we wouldn't be having this conservation at all.

He's an advice columnist who spends his entire profession thinking about right and wrong behavior and offering advice on it.

He's an intellectual thug. Go back and watch the video, or check out Youtube for some more of his stuff. This guy is the homosexual activist version of Bill Maher, albeit with an even coarser and more intellectually deteriorated approach to public discourse (or perhaps this could be seen as a kind of intellectual Andrew Dice Clayism?)

You just call any moral position you disagree with "relativism."

No, I call relativism relativism when I see it. This is a specific philosophical position, and either developed and explicit or rudimentary and emotionally based as the case may be, and historically has at least several major variations on the central theme

He's also done far more good for the world than you could hope to.

Poor little secular lefties and atheist libertarian immoralists. Always a bridesmaid but never a bride.