@ obiwanobiwan:
""In your responses, you mix both arguments together and use one to express judgement on the other whereas they are in fact separate issues."
Fair point, goldfinger...they are separate issues, but I'd argue that while they're logically separate they're connected in a practical sense, as the biological arguments inform the social arguments, and vice versa. They are two distinguishable arguments to be sure, but they do intertwine and don't necessarily come apart easily or without a bit of mess.
"If you re-read what I wrote I was saying the number of LGBT members keeps growing, not that the population is becoming increasingly homosexual. That being said, you have a point about why their numbers are increasing."
I read it the first time, Kyler...it's just that saying that the number keeps growing CAN lead to that (apparently mis)interpretation, growing population = more LGBT people in the population rather than more people "out" and identified as LGBT in the population.
"However, my contention is that we shouldn't encourage being abnormal or perverse with no logic behind it other than ones own pleasure. Let's say I liked to walk around barefoot -- had a kind of fetish for it. Or just hated to wear shoes. I mean like panic attacks and claustrophobia kind of hate. Shouldn't I be allowed to walk into a store or gas station? But wait! Lo and behold they have a sign forbidding that... But it doesn't cause anyone else harm.... And barefoot = pleasure for me..."
1. I'll treat this two ways--barefoot being a choice and not a choice. To get the easy one out of the way first...if it IS a choice, then no, you can't go in the gas station with no shoes, since you have control over the action and your action can effect others--ie, spread germs and undermine sanitary conditions--whereas being gay is not a choice and not one which has to involve non-voluntary members...you don't have to join in gay sex or gay weddings if you don't want to, and their being gay won't effect you or others, whereas your barefooted-ness can effect the health of others.
2. Now let's treat it from the other end, and say your barefooted-ness was NOT a choice, since you said it was due to claustrophobia and other extenuating circumstances. Because it can still harm others, ie, can still spread germs, I'd argue you can't go in the store, BUT I'd also argue the store has a duty to accommodate you all the same...maybe you could tell an attendant what items you want to buy, and they can purchase and deliver them to you in your car, drive-thru style? Your bare feet CAN cause others harm because of the spread of germs, so there IS that problem with your example...but again, I'd argue that society should accommodate you the best it could all the same. What's more, again, by contrast, gay marriage and gay sex do NOT affect others outside the match...you're not going to "catch the gays" by having gay people marry in your state and you can hardly catch any STDs a gay partner might be carrying if you don't have sex with a gay person, yes? The closest I can think of as to where it might effect you is in having to share that word "marriage" with a group of people you might not think should have the right to marry...but that's not causing you a direct harm, and you can't deny someone rights when the extent of their harm is offending you by the very nature of their being, that's John Stuart Mill 101, offense =/= as harm, whereas bare, germ-ridden feet spreading germs CAN count as harm.
Give me an example of a situation where allowing gay marriage/gay sex would harm non-participating parties, and it has to be something which is particular to gay marriage/sex (ie, you can't properly say "Two men having sex in the grocery aisle and getting jizz everywhee" since, well, a straight man and woman could fuck in public as well, getting their juices all over the place, so it's not acceptable no matter whether you're gay or straight and likewise not specific to the condition of being gay.)
3. "My point is that we have laid out reasoning as to why homosexuality is illogical, abnormal, and perverse to nature but you haven't given any reasons it should be considered logical, normal, or natural (baring the natural=doesn't hurt population control). And you have said that reproduction isn't necessary anymore which is outside of the scope of the question and jumps towards population control."
Well, to begin with...I'm not advocating for population control, I'm just saying we don't need more people on Earth...which is true. It's also like saying Donald Trump doesn't need more money--it's true. He CAN have more money, and no harm done, but if he didn't make one more dime the rest of his life, properly budgeted, he could still retire comfortably...maybe minus a few mansions and yachts, but the man's not going to starve to death, is he?
So, "logical, normal, or natural."
I'll take those in order.
I forget who said it above, but I agree with them...logically, happiness is a good; if you agree with Aristotle and other philosophers, scientists and thinkers, it's a good in itself. As such, that which makes you happy and doesn't harm others can be thought of as being at least partially logical...
Let's say that shouting the word "Blue!" makes you immeasurably happy, for whatever reason. Shouting the word ITSELF may seem illogical, but the REASON you shout it--to be happy--is not, therefore, while the internal logic of this process is rather head-scratching to the rest of us, there still IS an internal logic, Shouting "Blue!" = Happiness, Happiness = A Good Thing In Itself, THEREFORE, Man Shouts "Blue!" for Happiness and Happiness is Good.
Let's assume for the moment no one is harmed by The Man Who Cried Blue.
What logical reason is there to stop him from saying that word if it makes him happy, does not harm him, and does not harm others?
In fact, let's hit this a bit closer to home...
Say you believe in a Magic Man. This Magic Man lived 2,000 years ago, was a really cool Jewish hippie dude, sandals and all, and you think he's got a special brand of magic or power and when you're in a really, really tight spot in life that thinking of this Magic Man helps you cope and also gives a possibility of redemption and salvation in an afterlife of eternal bliss.
Now, SOME on the Internet might call your belief in this Magic Man irrational or illogical because, well, a Magical Mystery Jew offering all of this to you seems pretty ludicrous, especially 'cause, well, some might argue that old hippie's dead as dust, just like every other person we know of who's walked this Earth.
But REALLY, if you A. Are comforted by this belief, B. Don't impose your belief on others, and C. Are not harming yourself with said belief...then why not let said person have their consolation, even if, well, that Magical Hippie Jew seems absurd, illogical, and his actions were anything BUT the norm or natural?
Now, if I were one of those pesky people on the Internet, I'd point to B and C in the above and say things start to fall apart there--
That try as people might to keep their good vibes to themselves and be respectful of others, inevitably, such beliefs DO end up being imposed on others, and that these wishes CAN have a harmful effect on you or others, leading you to potentially do bad things in the name of that belief like, say, kill non-believers or develop a line of thinking which is psychologically-warped by this belief in one way or another.
ALL THAT BEING SAID, HOWEVER, unless I could *PROVE* that belief in this Magical Hippie Jew was the source of these problems, I would be wrong to try and stop you from believing in this Magic Man, because there's no logical reason to deny you your pleasure unless I can prove it brings you or others pain and/or that this pain outweighs the pleasure this belief gives you.
Likewise, some people may get their consolation from intimacy and a deep, personal relationship, and may wish to express that via anal sex with another man (or another woman, since for all our talk about gays, we seem to be leaving lesbians out, so yeah, anal sex or scissoring or whatever floats their boat.)
Unless this process is proven to either be harmful to themselves or harmful to others, and this process brings them happiness, and happiness is an end in and of itself...what's not logical about this process?
The argument that gets dragged up HERE most often is essentially an offshoot of what the Atheist argued to the believer in the Magical Mystery Jew--either "It's bad for you" or "It's bad for others around you for you to believe this."
How is it bad for others around gays for gays to marry and have sex?
I hear people say "How am I going to explain two guys marrying each other to my kid?" and at this point, I turn to one of our great philosophers, yes, Louis C.K himself:
"I dunno, it's your shitty kid...two guys are in LOVE, but they can't get married because YOU don't want to talk to your ugly kid for five fucking minutes?"
A bit oversimplified, but still, it can work...if the best you can claim in terms of the "harming others" category is either "It'll turn my kid gay" or "How do I explain gayness to my mid?" well...
I'll assume you explain to your kid that people have different skin tones and different nationalities and different religions or lack thereof, and THAT is all OK...so why is it so hard to explain that people have different ideas about who they love, too? Is it because sex is involved, and sex + parents = potentially uncomfortable situation with a 5-year old? Then don't tell the kid when he's five about sex, and just say that when two people love each other very much, they decide to marry or live together. In any case, again, offense =/= harm, so this potentially-offensive or awkward discussion for YOU is NOT sufficient reason to ban gays from marrying OR to call out gay love as illogical and defeat the "Happiness as an end in itself" point there.
So we turn to the other point, to close out the "Logic" portion of this--
"It's bad for you."
Unless someone can throw out there a killer stat in recent times that shows that somehow being gay is hazardous to your health--in a medical sense, I mean, not in Iran's "No gays here so gay = death" or Russia's "Gay = jail because fuck you" sense--I think we can discount that as a possibility...
So that leaves good old-fashioned "sin" and the idea homosexuality is a sin and thus it's bad for you because sinning is bad for you/your soul.
To many, this is the kicker on why gayness is bad...however...remember what I said was a necessary condition for having Magical Hippie Jew be an OK source of solace--
That you keep Him TO YOURSELF, and NOT impose Him or His beliefs or your beliefs on other people?
Well, here's your chance to bear that out.
Saying it's a sin =/= sufficient for saying "It's bad for you," since that not only is imposing your Magic Man and his Book on other people, but that's also assuming that what your Magic Man and His Book said are TRUE...
Which is a whole series of other threads on this website and we should all see the potential issue there and just leave that be. So.
Logically, you want goods in your life...
Happiness is an end good in itself...
To do what makes you happy is good so long as the above conditions are met...
I'd argue Homosexuality DOES meet the above conditions...
Ergo--
Homosexuality is a logical position for those who want to experience the goodness of happiness via homosexual intercourse, LGBT relationships, and marriage.
That's my best take on Logic thus far, on to Normalcy.
I'd argue there are at least two potential definitions for Normal here, and each is problematic in its own way--
1. Normal = the de facto "norm"
Example:
Most Bostonians who like baseball are Red Sox fans,
Red Sox fandom is the de facto baseball fandom in Boston,
Ergo,
If you live in Boston, it is normal to be a Red Sox fan.
This however raises an obvious problem--what about minorities or groups that are "other?"
Is it normal to be a Yankees fan in Boston?
Given our above definition, it'd seem we'd have to say no...
Most Bostonians are Red Sox fans...
Red Sox fans most certainly are =/= Yankees fans,
We're talking about people in Boston,
Ergo,
It's not the norm to be a Yankees fan in Boston.
That being said, however, flip the scenario around, and it's easy to see that what is considered "normal" here is contingent upon the de facto status of society at large, which is always subject to change.
Set this same question in New York, and you'll get the opposite answer--
It's normal to be a Yankees fan but NOT a Red Sox fan in New York.
So location is what makes things contingent here, so strip that and you have--
Is it normal to be a Yankees fan?
Is it normal to be a Red Sox fan?
And you're left with at least three options:
A. Yes, it's normal to be a Red Sox/Yankees fan, but only under certain conditions
B. Yes, it's normal to be a Red Sox/Yankees fan, and other conditions are extraneous
C. The paradigm on which we might judge normal from not normal isn't properly constructed in the case of Red Sox fans vs. Yankees fans
Extend that to gays.
A. Only under certain conditions? That doesn't seem satisfying, and yet, if normal = de facto, it's entirely possible for gay to be the norm in a majority-gay society and a deviation in a society where they are the minority...but this carries negative connotations and seems too apt to change to be satisfactory.
B. They're normal/not normal regardless of the de facto position? I'll come back to that.
C. The paradigm doesn't exist where we can make the statement either way? Possibly the most genuine of the three...since defining what's "normal" will (and has) led to major debates, we don't have an agreed paradigm against which we can cast others and define them as normal or not, so either it doesn't exist, it's an existing candidate, or we haven't yet found it, but for now, suspending judgement may well be the most conservative option.
2. Normal = Natural
This comes back to B above...and people do tend to often conflate Normal and Natural...so if that's the case, let's skip ahead to Natural itself.
What's "Natural?"
That teeters on the biological argument again, but to avoid fully retreading that ground, I'll say natural = innate, at least for our purposes here.
A fish is a natural swimmer because it has innate tools and gifts for swimming.
We say people are "naturally-born leaders," and while you need a LOT of experiential moments in life and training and so on to be a truly great leader, there may be something to the fact that some are born more pre-disposed towards leadership than others; after all, an extreme introvert isn't likely to turn into the next Alexander the Great or Henry V or George Washington.
Or we could argue that Peyton Manning had an innate gift for throwing the football because, well, his dad was a good NFL quarterback and he apparently got a taste of the happy side of the gene pool, too...ditto Eli (albeit to a far lesser extent...2 Super Bowls on clutch performances vs. Tom Brady, but yikes, 20 picks and counting this year...what a nightmare it's been for Eli and the Giants...but I digress.)
So, natural, at least for our purposes here, = innate.
To return to the earlier example, are people innately Red Sox or Yankees fans?
No, no one's born being a baseball fan, let alone a fan of a certain team, but that's not something you CAN be born with, in all fairness...no one is suggesting baseball is an inherited or else a developing condition...though God knows the Mets have led me to develop quite a condition over the years...but anyway...
Is gayness natural/innate, or is it a choice/caused by external forces?
Before I examine the former, let's take a look at the latter--
Who here really thinks (and I brace myself for krellin's response, assuming he's read this far without shooting the screen yet) that people turn gay because of society at large? NOT even that gayness is a lifestyle choice, but that it's one that is causally-linked and traceable at that?
Put another way, even if we said it was a lifestyle choice, does that mean playing too many Broadway hits or listening to Elton John or Freddie Mercury on repeat will have a Clockwork Orange-like effect and "turn you gay," as it were?
I'm going to bet (hope?) we all said no.
Schoolboards have said no and no longer allow "therapy" (and I use that term with quotes of fury) to "turn" gay kids straight.
That still doesn't answer whether it's innate or not.
I can't 100% answer that--
I'll say that a lot of LGBT people and the movement at large treats it as innate, and that while there's still a lack of a consensus as to HOW, WHETHER or not it's innate seems to be something the scientific community generally answers with "We think so...and we're trying to figure out how."
So, that's circumstantial, but better than the opposing case, so...innate until proven external?
And to come full-circle--
If it's natural to be logical it's normal to be logical and logical to be happy and being gay makes someone happy...
Does that make gayness logical, normal, and natural in one stroke?
Maybe not, but I'll take that shot anyway. Good night. ;) "
Wow, man - even by your standards that was a long post. Please learn to be a bit more concise. This is an online forum, no-one comes here wanting to read posts the length of a volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. You're having a bad influence on young Kyler, whose posts are also becoming rather long.
Tory nasties laugh at stories of hungry families
)
)
)
)
)