Is homosexuality a choice?

[_Ren]

LOL! Great minds! I was thinking the same thing!

Heh ;)

[_Moniker]

Yet, does not complying with C make you responsible for another individual -- in the libertarian philosophy if you choose to walk away from another individual that is not your responsibility (this individual has made it clear you're not) then can you comply with C?

I think different people might give different answers. But to me, Libertarianism means the aim of the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.
...how could I say that I was living to that aim if I willfully place someone in a situation where they aren't able to change their mind?! It doesn't work for me - the behavior doesn't seek to further the 'aims' of Libertarianism. Literally seeing it as 'moral' to do every single thing someone requests that you do to them seems a very shallow version of Libertarianism - and one I'm not down with at all.

I wasn't getting that C would be followed through merely because it was requested. If the two parties agreed that C was to be done and the party agreeing to not come back had no inclination to come back then in libertarian philosophy he could go on his merry way as it was HIS/HER desire to not return that was in effect. We talked about this before with the ability to walk away and desert children. The libertarian philosophy says we can't be forced into relationships that we choose not. Well if both parties here agreed to walk away and the person (not in the cell obviously) does walk away as per the agreement then he is following his own path and not that of another. It's a bit more complicated with children as they can't enter into contracts...

Regularly, I would make sure to come back and check on the person, and see if they wanted to be released. If they didn't, then fine. The person might tell me to stop coming back to check on them but - meh - how are they gonna stop me? They're locked in a cage! ;)

Well, I would do the same thing, too. I think that's the ethical thing to do. Yet, if we can just make up scenarios... I would NEVER do this to begin with. I'd tell them to find someone else. :D

[_Ren]

Oh oh. This is quickly becoming another Libertarian thread!
...split off? :)

I wasn't getting that C would be followed through merely because it was requested. If the two parties agreed that C was to be done and the party agreeing to not come back had no inclination to come back then in libertarian philosophy he could go on his merry way as it was HIS/HER desire to not return that was in effect.

OK - let's consider a similar but different scenario. Lets say that I had nothing to do with getting this person into the cage, but I just come across them on my travels. My first reaction is to try and get them out. They say no - they want to be in the cage, and to just go on my way.

I'd probably want to find out why they were doing what they were doing. Try to see if there is some 'sensible' reason for it. If I was convinced this person wasn't deranged in some way (not sure how, but...) - then - in the end - I might say fair enough and go on my way. Legitimately, without feeling I'd done something 'immoral'.

...however, if I were to come across people along the way - or some appropriate authorities - I'd be sure to see if they know about this person. If not, I'd make sure they were aware. I'd hopefully take a minimum amount of effort to try and make sure that somebody is going to check on this person. I wouldn't necessarily consider it MY job to check on them - but I'd surely like to think that somebody is going to...


I guess in the original scenario, I was involved in helping the person get locked into the cage. Therefore, I should feel more personal responsibility for the situation... I would say this directly relates to child support.

We talked about this before with the ability to walk away and desert children. The libertarian philosophy says we can't be forced into relationships that we choose not. Well if both parties here agreed to walk away and the person (not in the cell obviously) does walk away as per the agreement then he is following his own path and not that of another. It's a bit more complicated with children as they can't enter into contracts...

Hmm - well - I think the case of parent / child certainly is a case where the parent took an 'action' that they should take appropriate responsibility for. While the child is a minor - as far as I'm concerned - the parent is absolutely morally required to provide a 'minimum' amount of care to the child - even if that is just financial support.

To provide nothing but monetary support I would call 'morally dubious'. (And that's probably putting it lightly...)

But I also stand by what I said originally to this question - I think it's better that a child ends up with [a] guardian[s] that really want the child, rather than with [a] natural parent[s] that don't particularly want it...

So Libertarianism relies on 'somebody' wanting to take care of children? Well - yes. And I think you will always find such people to fill such a requirement...

Nature takes care of that 'drive' - not 'morality'...

Well, I would do the same thing, too. I think that's the ethical thing to do. Yet, if we can just make up scenarios... I would NEVER do this to begin with. I'd tell them to find someone else. :D

Agreed :) I find it hard to imagine why I would want to get involved with this situation either!
...I don't think the situation is about what I (or you) 'would' do. The situation is about what I (or you) would consider the range of 'morally viable' reactions to be...

[_guy sajer]

I'm late to the discussion, but I'm wondering whether any of us heterosexuals can pinpoint the time and place in which we made the decision to be heterosexual, as opposed to homosexual or bisexual?

As for myself, I don't recall ever considering and weighing the options. Let's see, straight, gay, or bi? Hmmm, which to choose, which to choose?

Nope, from early on, I was hetero, never made the choice, never considered my options, I just was.

Why should I assume that the process was any different for homosexuals?

[_Moniker]

Oh oh. This is quickly becoming another Libertarian thread!
...split off? :)

How 'bout you just agree with me and then we're good?

:)

I wasn't getting that C would be followed through merely because it was requested. If the two parties agreed that C was to be done and the party agreeing to not come back had no inclination to come back then in libertarian philosophy he could go on his merry way as it was HIS/HER desire to not return that was in effect.

OK - let's consider a similar but different scenario. Lets say that I had nothing to do with getting this person into the cage, but I just come across them on my travels. My first reaction is to try and get them out. They say no - they want to be in the cage, and to just go on my way.

Well, then they would be telling YOU what to do and as such you wouldn't have to comply. Yet, if you choose to intervene would you be infringing on their liberty by interfering with their want to be left alone? Would it move from negative to positive at this point? Paternalistic? Would you be determining that they lack rationality and imposing your own upon them?

I'd probably want to find out why they were doing what they were doing. Try to see if there is some 'sensible' reason for it. If I was convinced this person wasn't deranged in some way (not sure how, but...) - then - in the end - I might say fair enough and go on my way. Legitimately, without feeling I'd done something 'immoral'.

Aha! You're checking out their rationality, aren't ya? I KNEW IT! ;)

...however, if I were to come across people along the way - or some appropriate authorities - I'd be sure to see if they know about this person. If not, I'd make sure they were aware. I'd hopefully take a minimum amount of effort to try and make sure that somebody is going to check on this person. I wouldn't necessarily consider it MY job to check on them - but I'd surely like to think that somebody is going to...

Well, that's because you're a caring, concerned fellow.

I guess in the original scenario, I was involved in helping the person get locked into the cage. Therefore, I should feel more personal responsibility for the situation... I would say this directly relates to child support.

Ah, I agree -- what POSITIVE rights do those that are not adults have? Libertarian ideals usually rely on negative rights and when we look to children there is a special case of positive rights that come into play. An adult defines the child's interest -- not the child itself. Which is the same as what you were doing when checking out the rationality of the person telling you to leave them locked in a cell....

We talked about this before with the ability to walk away and desert children. The libertarian philosophy says we can't be forced into relationships that we choose not. Well if both parties here agreed to walk away and the person (not in the cell obviously) does walk away as per the agreement then he is following his own path and not that of another. It's a bit more complicated with children as they can't enter into contracts...

Hmm - well - I think the case of parent / child certainly is a case where the parent took an 'action' that they should take appropriate responsibility for. While the child is a minor - as far as I'm concerned - the parent is absolutely morally required to provide a 'minimum' amount of care to the child - even if that is just financial support.

Well, that's where the positive rights come in and paternalistic care for one that may lack rationality. This is why it's a special case in libertarianism. Not only can we impose our own will upon children, yet, most would declare that children MUST have positive rights and in light of that the adult must meet them.

To provide nothing but monetary support I would call 'morally dubious'. (And that's probably putting it lightly...)

I agree.

But I also stand by what I said originally to this question - I think it's better that a child ends up with [a] guardian[s] that really want the child, rather than with [a] natural parent[s] that don't particularly want it...

You're talking too literal and I'm in abstract. I agree, though. I'm just looking at it from the notion of rights and how we impose our individual will upon others within society.

Come up here with me in abstract land! :)

So Libertarianism relies on 'somebody' wanting to take care of children? Well - yes. And I think you will always find such people to fill such a requirement...

Well, I wasn't talking about the morality of it -- I think we'd all agree what the moral thing to do is. I'm talking about paternalism and how this delves off from negative rights for all to more utilitarianism -- the social welfare comes into play when we decide what to do with children in society and what rights they are afforded.

Nature takes care of that 'drive' - not 'morality'...

Yah, I agree.

...I don't think the situation is about what I (or you) 'would' do. The situation is about what I (or you) would consider the range of 'morally viable' reactions to be...

Okay, morally can you decide for someone else what is in their best interest if they're a rational adult?

[_asbestosman]

I'm late to the discussion, but I'm wondering whether any of us heterosexuals can pinpoint the time and place in which we made the decision to be heterosexual, as opposed to homosexual or bisexual?

As for myself, I don't recall ever considering and weighing the options. Let's see, straight, gay, or bi? Hmmm, which to choose, which to choose?

Nope, from early on, I was hetero, never made the choice, never considered my options, I just was.

Why should I assume that the process was any different for homosexuals?

Nope, but then I'm not sure that Kleptomaniacs chose to be that way either. Even so, I wouldn't dare let them do their thing. Of course, I think kleptos are inherently destructive to others wheras the sexual behavior of consenting audlts is not so inherently destructive to others (unless God burns us all for wickedness because we let them do their thing ;) ).

[_Ren]

Mon,
I've split our stuff off here. I think we've gone into full-blown 'L-word' mode now! :D

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... 202#167202

[_Gazelam]

My point in asking the questions about cannibalism is to get an understanding that some things are just inherently wrong. We just understand that some things are wrong without having to think about it. If we see a child being beaten, what is our instinct? Why do we care if we don't know the child and have no connection to it?

Because some things are just wrong on a basic level. We know right from wrong. that's why the gospel isn't necessarily spelled out for us, we rely on the influence of the Spirit to speak to our consiences to direct our actions and improve and educate us. We can learn to ignore this inner voice, we can go off our own knowledge and place our faith in the best scholar that flatters our intellect the best, but that's a dangerous game to play.

The name of God is Father, and the marriage between a Man and a Woman is the highest covenant that can be made between man and God. This is because the highest lesson that can be learned is how to create and maintain life. Maintainign life includes instructing ones children in how to make correct choices that build character.

Homosexuality is not numbered among correct or creative choices. It is an enviorment of death and decay.

[_Paul Kemp]

The name of God is Father, and the marriage between a Man and a Woman is the highest covenant that can be made between man and God. This is because the highest lesson that can be learned is how to create and maintain life. Maintainign life includes instructing ones children in how to make correct choices that build character.

Homosexuality is not numbered among correct or creative choices. It is an enviorment of death and decay.

Would you still feel this way if you woke up tomorrow and finally realized there was no God?

[_asbestosman]

My point in asking the questions about cannibalism is to get an understanding that some things are just inherently wrong. We just understand that some things are wrong without having to think about it.

Apparently cannibalism isn't one of them.

We can learn to ignore this inner voice, we can go off our own knowledge and place our faith in the best scholar that flatters our intellect the best, but that's a dangerous game to play.

So is leaving government to the tyrrany of the majority.

Again, I am not for homosexual marriage. I just happen to think that the government shouldn't be used as a tool for determining which adult sexual relationships are legitimate. Shades of polygamy past come to mind every time I think about it. I think the government was wrong to persecute the saints back then (although I'm grateful that polygamy is gone now), and I think it's wrong for the government to be used to say that monogamous heterosexual relationships are legit but the others are not. Let religion say it. Let us teach our kids that, but keep the government away from my marriage and away from my religion.

Furthermore, I think a much better cause for Christians to unite for is to combat rampant divorce. I would argue that it has done far more to damage society than homosexuality ever will. That's not to say I want women to stay in abusive marriages. I simply want to make it harder for divorces over the "irreconcilable differences" of money, faith, boredom, etc. especially when children are involved. We really need to ask ourselves if they would be better off if the parents divorced instead of merely asking the parents if that's what they want. While I don't feel it's right to force people to stay together, I do think divorce is too frequent and is something Mormons and other Christians should work harder on decreasing in their flocks--at least I feel it far more dangerous than homosexuality and at least as insulting to our Father to have people throw away their marriages as often as it happens in our day.