Any one who would consider homosexuality a genetic defect would be a hypocrite if they didn't also use the term for left-handedness, or any other genetic trait that is a minority in the population.

Or color-blindness or having six fingers on each hand instead of five? What makes one a defect and not the other?

Probably the same thing that makes homosexuality not a choice, but polygamy and promiscuity a choice, even though all three traits are found in animals.

Probably the same thing that makes it wrong to belittle transexuals for the surgery they have, but not people who have other surgeries (such as the women on the Swan or Michael Jackson), even though in both cases, it's to fix one of "God's mistakes."

You're telling me the people who quietly shuttle their princesses off for nosejobs and quicky abortions wouldn't LOVE to know ahead of time if a kid was going to be gay? I think you are acting more naive than you really are.

I've wondered about this question. If a person's "sexual orientation" is genetic, and it could be tested during pre-natal tests, would aborting a fetus because of being gay be considered a right of "choice" to be respected, or a "homophobic" act to be abhored???

I'm not telling you anything about what certain people will and will not do. I'm making analogous comparisons between one situation and another to perhaps get someone to see how ridiculous it is to consider one a defect. I'm aware of the world in which I live, and of all its imperfections. I will not stand by, however, and think that they have to remain imperfections forever.

I think both of us perhaps saw you trying to deny reality, not expressing the truth.  I dont disagree, and I doubt Baker does as well.  But we know they exist.  Hell, in china they abort girl babies due to the one baby rule.  And the last thing anyone would say was a defect is the female gene.

You analogy is true.  But then we do have to live with all people.  And many would not agree with it.

I've wondered about this question. If a person's "sexual orientation" is genetic, and it could be tested during pre-natal tests, would aborting a fetus because of being gay be considered a right of "choice" to be respected, or a "homophobic" act to be abhored???

I think that is a whole nother blog in itself!  And a very good question.

"Neither you nor I had mentioned sin or religion until this point. The discussion was entirely about genetics, and a trait that is not in the majority of the population has to be considered a genetic defect. Therefore, if homosexuality is a genetic defect, left-handedness would have to be too."

Yet sin and religion is one reason of many that a genetic characteristic might be deemed unwanted. Your left-handed example would be darned fitting in many Islamic nations, wouldn't it? In humans, AND penguins, genetic traits are graded by social interaction.

You brought up homosexuality as natural state. I'm just saying that there is a HUGE downside to the idea, even more so than "choice", in my opinion.

Gay people state that they couldn't choose as though it is an insta-win arguement against anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle. I think they underestimate the genetic vanity of the species...

Yet sin and religion is one reason of many that a genetic characteristic might be deemed unwanted. Your left-handed example would be darned fitting in many Islamic nations, wouldn't it? In humans, AND penguins, genetic traits are graded by social interaction.

Left-handedness (as well as the left side in general) has been a sign of evil in many cultures. It wasn't long ago that "left handedness" was considered a bad trait and teachers would go to great pains to retrain a student to use the right hand. You rightly mention Islamic nations and how their cultures view "the left hand". In the Old Testament, it is said that the lost tribes of Israel went to "The land of the North". In that culture (as well as many others) the north side of the map was to the left. "The land of the North" may not have meant true north, but "towards the sinister" (sinister and left being synonyms). Who knows, "sin" may even be a derivative of "sinister".

Or color-blindness or having six fingers on each hand instead of five? What makes one a defect and not the other?

I think that you misunderstand my argument. I contend that either every trait exhibited as a minority in a population should be classified a defect, or none of them.

I've wondered about this question. If a person's "sexual orientation" is genetic, and it could be tested during pre-natal tests, would aborting a fetus because of being gay be considered a right of "choice" to be respected, or a "homophobic" act to be abhored???

An interesting question, which cannot be done justice here. It deserves an entire blog to itself to explore all sides of the issue, although I believe aborting a child that has been shown to be homosexual should not be a choice.

"I think that you misunderstand my argument. I contend that either every trait exhibited as a minority in a population should be classified a defect, or none of them."

No, I think we get what you are saying, I just dunno how it helps the arguement about homosexuality. Appreciation or degradation of "differences" is totally subjective. If you finally drive home the idea that gays "can't help it", then it'll just be considered a defect or illness by those who disagree.

"I've wondered about this question. If a person's "sexual orientation" is genetic, and it could be tested during pre-natal tests, would aborting a fetus because of being gay be considered a right of "choice" to be respected, or a "homophobic" act to be abhored???"

At this point in time is there any restriction on the "why" of abortion? If a fetus is not a "life", as we are told, wouldn't that be interfering with someone's "right to choose"? Distasteful as it is, that sword cuts both ways as well...

So, we're in agreement. Homosexuality (if genetic, which isn't necessarily so), color blindness, and having six fingers instead of five on each hand aren't genetic defects.

" So, we're in agreement. Homosexuality (if genetic, which isn't necessarily so), color blindness, and having six fingers instead of five on each hand aren't genetic defects."

Huh? Nope, I said that the truth of that is determined by society, since there is no objective truth to be had. Given that most people won't even vote to legitimize it with a marriage license, I'm not putting my money on the idea.

At this point in time is there any restriction on the "why" of abortion? If a fetus is not a "life", as we are told, wouldn't that be interfering with someone's "right to choose"? Distasteful as it is, that sword cuts both ways as well...

Exactly. If one is pro-choice, then to say: "Women should have the right to choose, except when I disagree with their choice!" is hypocritical. Since this deserves a new topic though, I created one here!

But seriously, I think the whole "nature vs. Nurture" thing is a double edged sword. One person's example of diversity is another person's genetic flaw.

if sexual orientation is determined by genetics, as i believe it to be for a number of reasons including its manifestation in other social species--such as the penguins cited by philomedy--to qualify homosexual orientation a genetic flaw seems subjectively short-sighted. genetic variations are, by their nature, responsive. in the long run, only those working to the organism's advantage will be sustained for the obvious reason.

You don't think people burn in hell because of it, either

if anyone does burn in hell due to genetic programming or disposition, justice is neither divine nor existent.

"Whore" is a values judgment. As far as I know "Faggot" is a term for homosexual. Other terms for homosexuals are embraced by homosexuals themselves. What about this particular term is hurtful? I mean, if a term means gay, and you are gay, how is it any worse than "Fag", which is just a shortened version and gleefully adopted by many homosexuals themselves? P.S. Just as a pre-buttal, the "n" word was derogatory before it was used to refer to black people.

slut may be a values judgment but whore is a definition. 'faggot'--whatever its etymology--is a disrespectful slur. to the best of my knowledge, the other term has no history other than to demean those considered to be non-white.

No, I think we get what you are saying, I just dunno how it helps the arguement about homosexuality. Appreciation or degradation of "differences" is totally subjective. If you finally drive home the idea that gays "can't help it", then it'll just be considered a defect or illness by those who disagree.

I don't think it helps the homosexual argument, as it has already been counter argued rather effectively on here. However, to reiterate my entirel semantic point: A genetic trait not containe in a majority of the population will be shown to have been selected against, and so, by definition, is a defect in relation to its present environment.

Obviously, then, genetic defect in this case does not have to mean that the trait is harmful, or puts the individual at a disadvantage, just in the minority.

Obviously, then, genetic defect in this case does not have to mean that the trait is harmful, or puts the individual at a disadvantage, just in the minority.

I like to think of it like the blue eye gene.  Not a defect, just diversity.

if anyone does burn in hell due to genetic programming or disposition, justice is neither divine nor existent.

Not that I think people will go to hell solely for being gay, but we don't set the standards. God does. It'd be like a child judging the actions of his parents, unaware of all the complications of an adult life.

slut may be a values judgment but whore is a definition. 'faggot'--whatever its etymology--is a disrespectful slur. to the best of my knowledge, the other term has no history other than to demean those considered to be non-white.

Whore is also a disrespectful slur, at least in this day and age, and since we all know that prostitution and promiscuity are not choices (since animals do it), it should be considered hate speech to call anybody that.

how much are animals charging for sex these days?

"slut may be a values judgment but whore is a definition. 'faggot'--whatever its etymology--is a disrespectful slur."

I beg to differ. It is a slur for people who don't want to be called "homosexual". Kids call people "faggots" in the same way they call things they don't like "gay".

So, if you don't want someone to "out" you, "faggot" would be a slur. If you are an open homosexual, it is silly to consider "gay", "queer", etc. as okay and "faggot" as a slur. It's completely arbitrary.

how much are animals charging for sex these days?

Penguins are charging stones.

This site explains it more in detail (and has a picture of a really fat penguin on it).

...and since we all know that prostitution and promiscuity are not choices (since animals do it)

how much are animals charging for sex these days?

well done kingbee...

prositiution and promiscuity are NOT choices? how can they be anything but a choice? A woman chooses to sell her body for money... a guy chooses to have multiple partners (sex not discriminatory here)...

Yes most animals are, for the lack of a better term, promiscuious but surely they are acting on instinct rather than making an intelligble choice?

But we choose to be promiscuious just as we have the choice to remain monogomous.

I'll accept that with respects to prostitution there are unfortunately in our society those who have been forced in to the sex industry but the nature of their enslavement has taken away their freedom to do otherwise.

well done kingbee...

I posted some links concerning penguin prostitution.

prositiution and promiscuity are NOT choices? how can they be anything but a choice? A woman chooses to sell her body for money... a guy chooses to have multiple partners (sex not discriminatory here)... Yes most animals are, for the lack of a better term, promiscuious but surely they are acting on instinct rather than making an intelligble choice?

So, what you're saying is that just because animals do it doesn't mean it isn't a choice, meaning that the point Philomedy had (i.e. that homosexuality is not a choice because a few penguins are gay) is invalid?

just because animals do it doesn't mean it isn't a choice, meaning that the point Philomedy had (i.e. that homosexuality is not a choice because a few penguins are gay) is invalid?

Would never say that Philomedy's point is invalid (besides the fact that I think he would bite me!) but was more asking the question rather than making a direct statement... hence my use of question marks.

I posted some links concerning penguin prostitution

amusing links as well.

how can they be anything but a choice? A woman chooses to sell her body for money... a guy chooses to have multiple partners (sex not discriminatory here)...

It sounds like from this though that you're saying that just because an animal does something doesn't make it not a choice, so that would also apply to Philomedy's point, unless there's a double standard for homosexuality.

Yes most animals are, for the lack of a better term, promiscuious but surely they are acting on instinct rather than making an intelligble choice?

Wouldn't that make it not a choice for them (and then consequently, for us)?

But we choose to be promiscuious just as we have the choice to remain monogomous.

So perhaps we choose to be gay. After all, animals might be compelled to be homosexual, but they're also compelled to be promiscuous and to be prostitutes sometimes too.

I'll accept that with respects to prostitution there are unfortunately in our society those who have been forced in to the sex industry but the nature of their enslavement has taken away their freedom to do otherwise.

In those cases, it's a different kind of "not a choice." However, women who supposedly "choose" to be prostitutes can't be prostitutes if we accept that something's not a choice if penguins do it.

So, what you're saying is that just because animals do it doesn't mean it isn't a choice, meaning that the point Philomedy had (i.e. that homosexuality is not a choice because a few penguins are gay) is invalid?

Would never say that Philomedy's point is invalid (besides the fact that I think he would bite me!) but was more asking the question rather than making a direct statement... hence my use of question marks.

Philomedy acknoledged that his point was invalid halfway through the discussion here. Not to say that my opinions about homosexuality have changed, because I continue to feel rather strongly that homosexuals should not be treated as second class citizens or be discriminated against in any way. However, in light of some of Juxta's apt rebuttals to the "natural" argument, I will refrain from using it in the future.

Philomedy acknoledged that his point was invalid halfway through the discussion here.

hmmmm. if this was your point:

Obviously, then, genetic defect in this case does not have to mean that the trait is harmful, or puts the individual at a disadvantage, just in the minority.

i dont know why youd concede it. none of those 'if animals ______ then humans must ________ ' where the first ______ = 'some activity' and the second _______ = 'some convoluted conclusion' sophomorisms invalidates it.