7 ms·

I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. It relies on the naturalistic fallacy which I don't like, b

I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. It relies on the naturalistic fallacy which I don't like, but it also shuts down people who make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad, which I do like. Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together.

have_faith 8y ago
Exactly, an appeal to nature is not needed. Humans could be the only species ever observed with homosexual traits and it wouldn't make a difference when it comes to matters of whether something is ok or not.
- lisper 8y ago
  Neither of you are wrong, but given that this is a political issue as much as it is a [insert your favorite label here] issue, I think it's a mistake to pass up an opportunity to discredit the opposing side's fallacious arguments.
ulucs 8y ago
I think it's bad, as it opens the door for the "valid" retort of ducks being necrophiliac. Is a fallacious argument the hill we want to die on? I'd rather just support the positives of a liberal approach.
- lisper 8y ago
  It's easy to side-step that. If someone argues that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural just incorporate the retort into the counter-argument: there are gay giraffes and necrophiliac ducks, and, while we're at it, lots of species that eat their own young. Do you really think we should be modeling our behavior on what is "natural"?
  - k__ 8y ago
    I really have to read more about the steelman argument
presscast 8y ago
I think people are talking past each other when discussing "unnaturalness". Opponents of homosexuality often use the word "unnatural" in the sense of "not in humankind's nature". This is distinct from "unnatural" as "not occurring in nature". The argument is more like "eating dirt is okay for earthworms, but it's unnatural for humans", so appeal to the behavior of other animals completely misses the point. This is a profoundly metaphysical debate about the nature of a life well-lived and the nature of a healthy society. Whatever one thinks of it, that's the level on which it ought to be discussed.
- traderjane 8y ago
  I think they're talking about spiritual aberration, and not merely what's biologically common for humans. By natural people mean a perspective rightness, as opposed to merely some notion of statistical frequency.
  - presscast 8y ago
    Sure. That's very much my point (or have I missed yours?) "Natural" is used to mean "in the ontology of Man".
- balfirevic 8y ago
  It should be made clear that "unnaturalness", when used by opponents of homosexuality (and in many other debates of moralistic kind), is used in a question-begging way which carries no information at all and is nothing more than a shorthand for "I don't like it and I think it's bad". But, alas, it does sound like it has some meaning beyond that, which is why it's used in debates in a first place.
ebg13 8y ago
> Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together. This is so important and so regularly gets ignored by people on all sides. Once, a long time ago, I was talking to a much-smarter-than-me gay friend about the gay marriage debate in the US, and I said that being gay wasn't a choice and that _therefore_ yada yada. He said the only thing that in hindsight ever really matters, though at the time I'd never heard anyone say it before. He said "So what if it were a choice? What exactly does that change? You can't choose who to spend your life with? You can't choose who to share resources with? You can't choose who gets to be your proxy? Why is choice not important?"
- whatshisface 8y ago
  The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Your friend's argument would not work at all against people who are against homosexuality, because their answer to all of those questions would simply be "no." The "it's not a choice" argument only makes sense if you put yourself into the shoes of the other side and ask the question "given the resources I have, how could I conclude that gay marriage was acceptable?"
  - Udik 8y ago
    > The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow I understand what you mean, but it doesn't seem to be the case. In regards to sexual preferences, for example, there are some that are, arguably, not a choice either, and still are considered absolutely forbidden. > For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Nope, that would be ridiculous. But at the same time having Down's syndrome is not devoid of legal consequences. You'll probably be denied a driving license or the possibility to own guns, and you can argue as much as you want that your condition is perfectly natural and you didn't have a choice, it won't make any difference.
dqpb 8y ago
> *naturalistic fallacy" Well, showing that something exists in nature is much more factual and objective than debates will ever be over what people should and shouldn't do
- matt4077 8y ago
  Overcoming our nature, in which life is famously solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, is sort of the defining feature of humanity. The sum of everything that is not nature is referred to as "culture". It includes democracy, Shakespeare, The Simpsons, and SpaceX. The "naturalistic fallacy" is therefore a fallacy because it proofs too much: "nature" doesn't want us to go to the moon; it doesn't want us to vaccinate; it sees absolutely no point in rewriting a browser in Rust.
  - gus_massa 8y ago
    > life is famously solitary Wild humans were probably social. For comparison, Chimpanzee and Bonobos are social, they live in small groups. The next human relative is Gorilla, that are social too. Orangutans too. I don't know how far we must go to find a solitary relative of humans. (Note that all of them have very different sexual behavior.) > [nature] doesn't want us to vaccinate I don't know a natural example in other animal, but I'd not be surprised if there are any. There were some trick to get a natural vaccination before there were good vaccines. Just wait until there is a year with a mild version, and try to get your kids infected, so the year with a strong version they will be already immunized. (Like a "chickenpox party" that is a very stupid idea now that there are good vaccines.) For example see the early methods to get smallpox immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation
- andrewflnr 8y ago
  "Fact X exists, therefore it is useful as evidence in debate Y." "Should" is inherently subjective. There is not, in either principle it practice, any evidence that can answer a "should" question without reference to an established "should" presupposition. Get used to it.
blfr 8y ago
because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together Why? This strikes me as a very shallow moral principle. As 'presscast notes it completely misses the point of the nature of a life well-lived. Ironically, in practice it goes against human nature. Atomized society of people passing each other indifferently is certainly freer in some sense but it's also lonely and depressing for many of its members. It goes directly against our most basic needs for social belonging.
- trhway 8y ago
  >>because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together >Why? This strikes me as a very shallow moral principle. that is a circular argument as morals are the behaviors that society allows consenting adults to engage in. Wrt. [un]naturality based arguments - there is nothing natural about humans using smartphones, flying in airplanes, etc. yet billions of people shamelessly engage in those unnatural activities everyday. We're way past natural... Why are we so hellbent about whether it is natural or unnatural of how some people enjoy each other company?
- nemo1618 8y ago
  The modern emphasis on individualism is understandable as a reaction to the collectivism of the past. But as usual, we over-corrected. So now we're entering a period of reaction against individualism. We'll almost certainly over-correct again, but it won't be as severe. "Progress" is not a straight line, it's an attenuated wave.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    It's depressing to contemplate, but this prediction might be correct...
- meruru 8y ago
  Because why not? They are not hurting anybody so let them have fun.
- peteretep 8y ago
  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights in at least one well-known country. Being able to bang who you want (assuming they feel the same way) presumably falls under the third?
chasereed 8y ago
I agree, but as a gay ex-Mormon, I have seen that educating people about the (mostly) biological origin of homosexuality is the most effective way to break through people’s dogmatic shields and make them start empathizing with gay people.
- jhbadger 8y ago
  The danger of assigning a biological cause is that now with CRISPR there is the argument that we should find the site(s) responsible and edit them out in future embryos. Just accepting the result without assigning a cause doesn't have this problem.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Are you predicting that CRISPR will succeed at this odious task? Or that it won't? Because either way... that would seem to settle the question, wouldn't it?
    - jhbadger 8y ago
      I'm not predicting either way. Nobody really knows if human homosexuality is genetic, developmental, social, or a mixture of the three. I'm saying that if it is shown to be genetic, the idea that this will help acceptance is flawed.
matt4077 8y ago
Having had the same sort of thought, I believe what I was reacting to was the feeling that this idea seemed just slightly too convenient to be the result of entirely open-ended inquiry. But then again I have seen the terrible devastation that was brought upon some less fortunate friends when they realised they were gay: teenagers driven into isolation (and, once, suicide) by their former "friends"; beloved members of their respective communities and/or families having to start from scratch, just because those communities happened to be "conservative". I'm having a hard time believing anybody would choose such suffering with anything approaching a sensible definition of the term "free choice". It's also important to remember that "born that way" is mostly just the headline of a more complex story of how sexuality is understood, one that even progressive activists wouldn't oppose. This sees homo/hetero-sexuality not as a binary choice, but as a spectrum. There's a set point you're born with. Then there's an overlay of culture–just think how much more acceptable it is for women to kiss than it is for men. Finally, there is some wiggle room any individual may experience over the span of their lives, or even just the span of a day given the right intoxicating substances. This doesn't contradict the idea of inborn sexual orientation, because (see above) cultural and experiential factors are almost definitely not able to overcome biology for many. But it may help to overcome any cognitive dissonance you feel.
dictum 8y ago
This debate, like most political debates that touch on philosophy, is amazing but impossible to conduct with the general public. It's the kind of thing you can only discuss with people who are already open to question certain norms. Right in another thread is an article about a pacemaker. Almost nothing in a car, let alone in any electronic device, is untouched by human invention and chemical/physical transformation. Tradition — what "natural" ultimately amounts to — is prologue, not fate.
dana321 8y ago
Is killing natural? Is masturbation natural? Is stealing natural? Is talking natural? Is writing natural? Is a phone/computer/tablet natural? It doesn't make one bit of difference whether its "natural" or not. Its like manufacturers putting "natural" on yogurt. Everything is "natural" or not, because someone decides. I came across someone that didn't think sodium bicarbonate was natural, when in fact its found dissolved in many mineral springs. Calcium carbonate? That can't be natural.. Its just chalk. Magnesium chloride.. Its just a magnesium rich salt evaporated from the dead sea.
LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
Well, i guess the usual hatred wouldnt be there - if it were not so usefull for females to enforce contract upholding. This pushed the third sex into church processions, where they can be threatened by the "evil hetero-men" and at the same time reassured of protection "by believers". Dont believe me? Watch the topics in your relations that come up repeatetly. I bet you, there is a check-loop, where you will be tested for reproducable emotions regarding queers. And of course controllability, by adhering to some other dogma. This happening subconciously, doesent make it evil. It just is. And that is the point where one has to be proud, how far we got away from that cruel, old time reality, with those chains in the head. Unfortunatly, the moment the economy dips, the old behaviour patterns rise again. Suddenly calls for "morality" get loud, as if some upper-class orgy or some harmless queer procession was to blame for all the dip in surplus. But if you step back from the social machinery it makes sense. Basically the request for monks, priest, whatever to be drafted to the first judical caste. Oh, how i want to be free..
Udik 8y ago
> I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. I always thought that the argument was just for the sake of proving that this natural/unnatural thing is worthless. Homosexuality is natural and nonetheless someone opposes it on the grounds that it's not. Illnesses are natural but nobody is opposed to curing people. Anyway, it's the old observation that conservatives tend to confuse the is with the ought to be- in other words, to argue that because something is natural or common then it is morally justified and should be enforced. I've noticed what could be an exactly opposite tendency in liberals though, and I think it's interesting: confusing the ought to be with the is. It's not used as an argument, but it seems to inform some reasoning. For example: (these are just some examples and I'm thinking out loud, so please don't crucify me) - there shouldn't be any racial or sexual discriminations -> there are no differences whatsoever between ethnic groups and genders; - gay couples should be allowed to raise children -> there is absolutely no difference between a heterosexual family and a homosexual family; - there shouldn't be rich and poors -> money can be removed from society and everybody will be equal; Etc.
- dTal 8y ago
  It's a great observation. I think the conservative tendency feeds the liberal tendency. Take racial differences. If any politically problematic difference between races were to be found, then a liberal will be very inclined to suppress this. Why? Because if the conservatives ever got ahold of it, they'd go "aha! racism is justified!" and there wouldn't ever be an end to it - arguing that racism is immoral is a lot harder, pragmatically, than arguing that it's simply mistaken. I wonder if there's feedback the other way, as well. I can't immediately see the mechanism but I suspect there is one. Perhaps seeing liberalism associated with a deranged sense of reality causes people to reject it wholesale...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
75dvtwin 8y ago
I think, however, general understanding that homosexuality is something a person is 'born with' -- had huge impact on policies and public debate around legalizing homosexual marriages. Being born with it, rather than a choice -- meant that unfair treatment of homosexuals was morally equivalent to race/ethnic origin based prosecutions. Therefore, civil rights accomplishments, and modern legal framework resulting from those -- would apply to homosexuals. If 'being born with' would not have been recognized as scientific truth, then homosexual marriages would likely be treated the same as consenting adult polygamists. I think this is one of reasons why non-binary people having hard time being recognized in same policy/morality structures as homosexual people. > Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together.
bigodbiel 8y ago
plain simple english, how hard can it be to be understood
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lorriman 8y ago
"Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together." Including adopting children? I don't think so. I didn't grow up with a mum and I dearly wish I had.
qwerty456127 8y ago
> and therefore bad, which I do like Why? Indeed "unnatural=bad" is pointless, there are just so many "unnatural" things people do that are considered ok (btw the mere fact they do already suggests it's not unnatural, umans are a part of nature to and they are doing something without being forced). Even simple medication or agriculture or exercising can be considered "unnatural". Besides that why can homosexuality be considered bad? I'm straight but take it as a matter of taste, males just don't feel attractive to me. I can see no reason I could take seriously. If a significant percent of homosexual acts between healthy partners would result in serious diseases or trauma I would consider this as a clue but I haven't ever read about any evidence suggesting this.
dTal 8y ago
>we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together When does "by default" become "actually, no, that's bad and even consenting adults shouldn't do that"? If you want to take a strong position that there should be no such thing as a victimless crime, then that's coherent and valid - but if you want to hedge with "by default", I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. You still have to say something pragmatic like "homosexuality has no documented negative social effects". (Although personally, I do think that the very idea of a victimless crime is suspect - while some behaviors between consenting adults do have unambiguously negative consequences, criminalizing actions for their invisible second-order effects seems to often cause other, nastier second-order effects. But it's certainly up for debate - applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell.)
- balfirevic 8y ago
  > I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. I don't think this is abstract ethical argument, but practical argument about policy. So we don't have to provide any stronger framework. Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Starting from "allowed by default" would already be a big improvement. > applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell Homosexuality was also a difficult sell. That doesn't mean anything.
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Yes, this is what limited government is about. It makes policy makers accountable to the people, not the other way around. Because the government can not really implement a ban per se, but rather a particular policy that hopefully eliminates the harm, policy makers actually have to make a case for something and not just against something. Otherwise, it's just the government proclaiming that the world would be better off without something. In which case, let us start with war, margarine and bad coffee.
ummonk 8y ago
>Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together. I think most are on board with that - they just can't agree on when that default should be overridden (either by making certain activity legal or more commonly by simply subjecting it to social disapproval). Such areas of contention include way more than homosexuality, e.g. prostitution, quid pro quo sexual harassment, incest, large age / maturity gaps in relationships, mental disability, bdsm, threesomes, masturbation, and porn use.
refurb 8y ago
“Let two consenting adults do what they want to do” has it’s limits too?” Like the guy who agreed to be murdered and eaten in Germany?
- Hasknewbie 8y ago
  I don't know why you got downvoted, that thing did happen and "consenting adults" was the murderer/cannibal's defense. Another counter-example I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet is incest. "Between consenting adults" is a necessary but unsufficient condition.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  It seems strange to me to see a discussion like this conducted in terms of only one principle. For example, consider how would we know if someone consented to being killed? And how could a consent structure for it be abused? This is where we see it bump against another important principle, that we may not deprive another person of their life without due process of law.

have_faith 8y ago

Exactly, an appeal to nature is not needed. Humans could be the only species ever observed with homosexual traits and it wouldn't make a difference when it comes to matters of whether something is ok or not.

lisper 8y ago
Neither of you are wrong, but given that this is a political issue as much as it is a [insert your favorite label here] issue, I think it's a mistake to pass up an opportunity to discredit the opposing side's fallacious arguments.

ulucs 8y ago

I think it's bad, as it opens the door for the "valid" retort of ducks being necrophiliac. Is a fallacious argument the hill we want to die on? I'd rather just support the positives of a liberal approach.

lisper 8y ago
It's easy to side-step that. If someone argues that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural just incorporate the retort into the counter-argument: there are gay giraffes and necrophiliac ducks, and, while we're at it, lots of species that eat their own young. Do you really think we should be modeling our behavior on what is "natural"?
- k__ 8y ago
  I really have to read more about the steelman argument

presscast 8y ago

I think people are talking past each other when discussing "unnaturalness". Opponents of homosexuality often use the word "unnatural" in the sense of "not in humankind's nature". This is distinct from "unnatural" as "not occurring in nature". The argument is more like "eating dirt is okay for earthworms, but it's unnatural for humans", so appeal to the behavior of other animals completely misses the point. This is a profoundly metaphysical debate about the nature of a life well-lived and the nature of a healthy society. Whatever one thinks of it, that's the level on which it ought to be discussed.

traderjane 8y ago
I think they're talking about spiritual aberration, and not merely what's biologically common for humans. By natural people mean a perspective rightness, as opposed to merely some notion of statistical frequency.
- presscast 8y ago
  Sure. That's very much my point (or have I missed yours?) "Natural" is used to mean "in the ontology of Man".
balfirevic 8y ago
It should be made clear that "unnaturalness", when used by opponents of homosexuality (and in many other debates of moralistic kind), is used in a question-begging way which carries no information at all and is nothing more than a shorthand for "I don't like it and I think it's bad". But, alas, it does sound like it has some meaning beyond that, which is why it's used in debates in a first place.

ebg13 8y ago

> Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together. This is so important and so regularly gets ignored by people on all sides. Once, a long time ago, I was talking to a much-smarter-than-me gay friend about the gay marriage debate in the US, and I said that being gay wasn't a choice and that _therefore_ yada yada. He said the only thing that in hindsight ever really matters, though at the time I'd never heard anyone say it before. He said "So what if it were a choice? What exactly does that change? You can't choose who to spend your life with? You can't choose who to share resources with? You can't choose who gets to be your proxy? Why is choice not important?"

whatshisface 8y ago
The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow. For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Your friend's argument would not work at all against people who are against homosexuality, because their answer to all of those questions would simply be "no." The "it's not a choice" argument only makes sense if you put yourself into the shoes of the other side and ask the question "given the resources I have, how could I conclude that gay marriage was acceptable?"
- Udik 8y ago
  > The motivation behind the "it's not a choice" argument is that society can't reasonably enforce a rule that people can't follow I understand what you mean, but it doesn't seem to be the case. In regards to sexual preferences, for example, there are some that are, arguably, not a choice either, and still are considered absolutely forbidden. > For example you and I are against Down's syndrome, but we can't make any progress by telling people to stop having it. Nope, that would be ridiculous. But at the same time having Down's syndrome is not devoid of legal consequences. You'll probably be denied a driving license or the possibility to own guns, and you can argue as much as you want that your condition is perfectly natural and you didn't have a choice, it won't make any difference.

dqpb 8y ago

> *naturalistic fallacy" Well, showing that something exists in nature is much more factual and objective than debates will ever be over what people should and shouldn't do

matt4077 8y ago
Overcoming our nature, in which life is famously solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, is sort of the defining feature of humanity. The sum of everything that is not nature is referred to as "culture". It includes democracy, Shakespeare, The Simpsons, and SpaceX. The "naturalistic fallacy" is therefore a fallacy because it proofs too much: "nature" doesn't want us to go to the moon; it doesn't want us to vaccinate; it sees absolutely no point in rewriting a browser in Rust.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  > life is famously solitary Wild humans were probably social. For comparison, Chimpanzee and Bonobos are social, they live in small groups. The next human relative is Gorilla, that are social too. Orangutans too. I don't know how far we must go to find a solitary relative of humans. (Note that all of them have very different sexual behavior.) > [nature] doesn't want us to vaccinate I don't know a natural example in other animal, but I'd not be surprised if there are any. There were some trick to get a natural vaccination before there were good vaccines. Just wait until there is a year with a mild version, and try to get your kids infected, so the year with a strong version they will be already immunized. (Like a "chickenpox party" that is a very stupid idea now that there are good vaccines.) For example see the early methods to get smallpox immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation
andrewflnr 8y ago
"Fact X exists, therefore it is useful as evidence in debate Y." "Should" is inherently subjective. There is not, in either principle it practice, any evidence that can answer a "should" question without reference to an established "should" presupposition. Get used to it.

blfr 8y ago

because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together Why? This strikes me as a very shallow moral principle. As 'presscast notes it completely misses the point of the nature of a life well-lived. Ironically, in practice it goes against human nature. Atomized society of people passing each other indifferently is certainly freer in some sense but it's also lonely and depressing for many of its members. It goes directly against our most basic needs for social belonging.

trhway 8y ago
>>because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together >Why? This strikes me as a very shallow moral principle. that is a circular argument as morals are the behaviors that society allows consenting adults to engage in. Wrt. [un]naturality based arguments - there is nothing natural about humans using smartphones, flying in airplanes, etc. yet billions of people shamelessly engage in those unnatural activities everyday. We're way past natural... Why are we so hellbent about whether it is natural or unnatural of how some people enjoy each other company?
nemo1618 8y ago
The modern emphasis on individualism is understandable as a reaction to the collectivism of the past. But as usual, we over-corrected. So now we're entering a period of reaction against individualism. We'll almost certainly over-correct again, but it won't be as severe. "Progress" is not a straight line, it's an attenuated wave.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  It's depressing to contemplate, but this prediction might be correct...
meruru 8y ago
Because why not? They are not hurting anybody so let them have fun.
peteretep 8y ago
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights in at least one well-known country. Being able to bang who you want (assuming they feel the same way) presumably falls under the third?

chasereed 8y ago

I agree, but as a gay ex-Mormon, I have seen that educating people about the (mostly) biological origin of homosexuality is the most effective way to break through people’s dogmatic shields and make them start empathizing with gay people.

jhbadger 8y ago
The danger of assigning a biological cause is that now with CRISPR there is the argument that we should find the site(s) responsible and edit them out in future embryos. Just accepting the result without assigning a cause doesn't have this problem.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Are you predicting that CRISPR will succeed at this odious task? Or that it won't? Because either way... that would seem to settle the question, wouldn't it?
  - jhbadger 8y ago
    I'm not predicting either way. Nobody really knows if human homosexuality is genetic, developmental, social, or a mixture of the three. I'm saying that if it is shown to be genetic, the idea that this will help acceptance is flawed.

matt4077 8y ago

Having had the same sort of thought, I believe what I was reacting to was the feeling that this idea seemed just slightly too convenient to be the result of entirely open-ended inquiry. But then again I have seen the terrible devastation that was brought upon some less fortunate friends when they realised they were gay: teenagers driven into isolation (and, once, suicide) by their former "friends"; beloved members of their respective communities and/or families having to start from scratch, just because those communities happened to be "conservative". I'm having a hard time believing anybody would choose such suffering with anything approaching a sensible definition of the term "free choice". It's also important to remember that "born that way" is mostly just the headline of a more complex story of how sexuality is understood, one that even progressive activists wouldn't oppose. This sees homo/hetero-sexuality not as a binary choice, but as a spectrum. There's a set point you're born with. Then there's an overlay of culture–just think how much more acceptable it is for women to kiss than it is for men. Finally, there is some wiggle room any individual may experience over the span of their lives, or even just the span of a day given the right intoxicating substances. This doesn't contradict the idea of inborn sexual orientation, because (see above) cultural and experiential factors are almost definitely not able to overcome biology for many. But it may help to overcome any cognitive dissonance you feel.

dictum 8y ago

This debate, like most political debates that touch on philosophy, is amazing but impossible to conduct with the general public. It's the kind of thing you can only discuss with people who are already open to question certain norms. Right in another thread is an article about a pacemaker. Almost nothing in a car, let alone in any electronic device, is untouched by human invention and chemical/physical transformation. Tradition — what "natural" ultimately amounts to — is prologue, not fate.

dana321 8y ago

Is killing natural? Is masturbation natural? Is stealing natural? Is talking natural? Is writing natural? Is a phone/computer/tablet natural? It doesn't make one bit of difference whether its "natural" or not. Its like manufacturers putting "natural" on yogurt. Everything is "natural" or not, because someone decides. I came across someone that didn't think sodium bicarbonate was natural, when in fact its found dissolved in many mineral springs. Calcium carbonate? That can't be natural.. Its just chalk. Magnesium chloride.. Its just a magnesium rich salt evaporated from the dead sea.

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago

Well, i guess the usual hatred wouldnt be there - if it were not so usefull for females to enforce contract upholding. This pushed the third sex into church processions, where they can be threatened by the "evil hetero-men" and at the same time reassured of protection "by believers". Dont believe me? Watch the topics in your relations that come up repeatetly. I bet you, there is a check-loop, where you will be tested for reproducable emotions regarding queers. And of course controllability, by adhering to some other dogma. This happening subconciously, doesent make it evil. It just is. And that is the point where one has to be proud, how far we got away from that cruel, old time reality, with those chains in the head. Unfortunatly, the moment the economy dips, the old behaviour patterns rise again. Suddenly calls for "morality" get loud, as if some upper-class orgy or some harmless queer procession was to blame for all the dip in surplus. But if you step back from the social machinery it makes sense. Basically the request for monks, priest, whatever to be drafted to the first judical caste. Oh, how i want to be free..

Udik 8y ago

> I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. I always thought that the argument was just for the sake of proving that this natural/unnatural thing is worthless. Homosexuality is natural and nonetheless someone opposes it on the grounds that it's not. Illnesses are natural but nobody is opposed to curing people. Anyway, it's the old observation that conservatives tend to confuse the is with the ought to be- in other words, to argue that because something is natural or common then it is morally justified and should be enforced. I've noticed what could be an exactly opposite tendency in liberals though, and I think it's interesting: confusing the ought to be with the is. It's not used as an argument, but it seems to inform some reasoning. For example: (these are just some examples and I'm thinking out loud, so please don't crucify me) - there shouldn't be any racial or sexual discriminations -> there are no differences whatsoever between ethnic groups and genders; - gay couples should be allowed to raise children -> there is absolutely no difference between a heterosexual family and a homosexual family; - there shouldn't be rich and poors -> money can be removed from society and everybody will be equal; Etc.

dTal 8y ago
It's a great observation. I think the conservative tendency feeds the liberal tendency. Take racial differences. If any politically problematic difference between races were to be found, then a liberal will be very inclined to suppress this. Why? Because if the conservatives ever got ahold of it, they'd go "aha! racism is justified!" and there wouldn't ever be an end to it - arguing that racism is immoral is a lot harder, pragmatically, than arguing that it's simply mistaken. I wonder if there's feedback the other way, as well. I can't immediately see the mechanism but I suspect there is one. Perhaps seeing liberalism associated with a deranged sense of reality causes people to reject it wholesale...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

75dvtwin 8y ago

I think, however, general understanding that homosexuality is something a person is 'born with' -- had huge impact on policies and public debate around legalizing homosexual marriages. Being born with it, rather than a choice -- meant that unfair treatment of homosexuals was morally equivalent to race/ethnic origin based prosecutions. Therefore, civil rights accomplishments, and modern legal framework resulting from those -- would apply to homosexuals. If 'being born with' would not have been recognized as scientific truth, then homosexual marriages would likely be treated the same as consenting adult polygamists. I think this is one of reasons why non-binary people having hard time being recognized in same policy/morality structures as homosexual people. > Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together.

bigodbiel 8y ago

plain simple english, how hard can it be to be understood

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lorriman 8y ago

"Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together." Including adopting children? I don't think so. I didn't grow up with a mum and I dearly wish I had.

qwerty456127 8y ago

> and therefore bad, which I do like Why? Indeed "unnatural=bad" is pointless, there are just so many "unnatural" things people do that are considered ok (btw the mere fact they do already suggests it's not unnatural, umans are a part of nature to and they are doing something without being forced). Even simple medication or agriculture or exercising can be considered "unnatural". Besides that why can homosexuality be considered bad? I'm straight but take it as a matter of taste, males just don't feel attractive to me. I can see no reason I could take seriously. If a significant percent of homosexual acts between healthy partners would result in serious diseases or trauma I would consider this as a clue but I haven't ever read about any evidence suggesting this.

dTal 8y ago

>we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together When does "by default" become "actually, no, that's bad and even consenting adults shouldn't do that"? If you want to take a strong position that there should be no such thing as a victimless crime, then that's coherent and valid - but if you want to hedge with "by default", I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. You still have to say something pragmatic like "homosexuality has no documented negative social effects". (Although personally, I do think that the very idea of a victimless crime is suspect - while some behaviors between consenting adults do have unambiguously negative consequences, criminalizing actions for their invisible second-order effects seems to often cause other, nastier second-order effects. But it's certainly up for debate - applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell.)

balfirevic 8y ago
> I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. I don't think this is abstract ethical argument, but practical argument about policy. So we don't have to provide any stronger framework. Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Starting from "allowed by default" would already be a big improvement. > applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell Homosexuality was also a difficult sell. That doesn't mean anything.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Yes, this is what limited government is about. It makes policy makers accountable to the people, not the other way around. Because the government can not really implement a ban per se, but rather a particular policy that hopefully eliminates the harm, policy makers actually have to make a case for something and not just against something. Otherwise, it's just the government proclaiming that the world would be better off without something. In which case, let us start with war, margarine and bad coffee.

ummonk 8y ago

>Ultimately, homosexuality in humans is fine not because it's natural, but because we should, by default, let consenting adults do what they want together. I think most are on board with that - they just can't agree on when that default should be overridden (either by making certain activity legal or more commonly by simply subjecting it to social disapproval). Such areas of contention include way more than homosexuality, e.g. prostitution, quid pro quo sexual harassment, incest, large age / maturity gaps in relationships, mental disability, bdsm, threesomes, masturbation, and porn use.

refurb 8y ago

“Let two consenting adults do what they want to do” has it’s limits too?” Like the guy who agreed to be murdered and eaten in Germany?

Hasknewbie 8y ago
I don't know why you got downvoted, that thing did happen and "consenting adults" was the murderer/cannibal's defense. Another counter-example I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet is incest. "Between consenting adults" is a necessary but unsufficient condition.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
It seems strange to me to see a discussion like this conducted in terms of only one principle. For example, consider how would we know if someone consented to being killed? And how could a consent structure for it be abused? This is where we see it bump against another important principle, that we may not deprive another person of their life without due process of law.