That – and I maybe mistaken, because it was more than slightly convoluted – is V in C’s point. Murder (Cain and Abel), incest (Adam and Eve, the siblings would have HAD to fuck), bestiality (no documented instance comes to mind) and pedophilia (same again) have been around for just as wrong Electra. And V in C says that in those cases we have no qualms in calling those acts wrong even though they show the same characteristics as gay sex, or even oral sex for that matter. Non – reproductive sex acts are all deviant in a matter of degree (I don’t agree but that’s V in C’s argument), and he has a point.

The point being simply…where do we draw the line? I don’t think anyone should. But in that case we’ll have to decriminalise bestiality and pedophilia too. There are some little girls that are imminently doable ( I mean when they are around 15 at least OK!!). But it’s legally wrong. Why?

i think the human species has come a long way. for us to say that our primal need is to reproduce is ridiculous. our needs and our pleasures are far more complexed now, as are our problems and our minds.

don’t you think that if every single person on this planet was reproducing we’d have an even bigger problem than you feel homosexuality is? maybe homosexuality is a another way for nature to maintain its balance, ever thought of that?

promiscuity in general, is damaging as long as only one party of the relationship is engaging in it. if there is a commitment, no has the right to cheat, be you gay or straight. i don’t condone promiscuity unless a couple has decided to be so, decided to be ‘open’, i don’t condone it because it’s harmful and risky. there is no proof that gays are more promiscuous than straights, nor that straights are more promiscuous than gays. its just a human way, it has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation.

If you want to talk about Natural Law you can start with Jefferson

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Or Hobbes,

The eighth Law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.
The ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.

There’s nothing in natural law that says gay people are gross. In fact, natural law says that consenting adults can put their penises anywhere they damn well please. Homophobes (like racists) violate natural law by looking down on gays and comparing them to apes (as you did here). Natural Law is about freedom, and people are free to be gay. You may, in your pride, condemn them as wrong, but you have no refuge in ‘natural law’. Every professional psychological body says that homosexuality is not pathological or damaging to anyone. In law, courts all over the world are discovering the natural law that adults are free to love and build relationships and families as they please. Even in the States the over-ruled an anti-sodomy law:

The majority decision found that “the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections.” Holding that “the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional.

Loving who you wish to love is a good thing. It is good for individuals and it is good for society. You have compared many good and noble people, friends, and family to pedophiles, wife-beaters or murders simply for being gay. That is prideful, it is homophobic, and it is wrong. Don’t hold up Natural Law to defend yourself. Natural Law is not about sex. Natural Law is about freedom.

>There have been homosexuals throughout history and the fact that they’re a minority doesn’t make them ‘wrong’.

I never said that being a MINORITY make them ‘wrong’. Certainly not.
It’s wrong simply because it is against the norm of humanity – however perhaps I’m using the word “norm” incorrectly here. It is part of human nature that there is a right way and a wrong way. Things like murder or pedophilia are CLEARLY seen as “wrong”, with only a few people having doubts about those matters. But when it comes to things like “homosexuality (or even heterosexual promiscuity) among consenting adults”, people tend to be more blind to the fact that these too are “wrong” (“wrong”, as in, against the “right way”; against true human nature; against the “natural law”).

Yes, of course I sympathize with the fact that this idea of a natural law is not something that comes naturally to most of us. It is not a clearly visible or rational or clearly logical thing, this “natural law”; hence we are uncomfortable with the idea of it, and most people (like me!) who talk about its existence will be regarded as crazy, weird, eccentric, or whatever! But it is a fact: there IS such a natural law (a natural moral law) which is an integral part of our very NATURE as humans.

Take it another way: one could quite justifiably ask “what is wrong with a consenting adult and a consenting EDUCATED INTELLIGENT chimpanzees or gorilla, from having sex”? I am not joking; this is a serious question: 500 years from now it may well be being debated by law makers. Well, what IS wrong with that? Some apes are highly intelligent; there was that female gorilla, Koko, who could speak sign language AND truly understood it. her IQ was almost 100 (100 being “average human IQ”) – see http://www.koko.org/world/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29

Many “consenting adults” have a lower IQ than Koko! It is then a fair question to ask why Koko and a human cannot have sex. I cannot PROVE that it is “wrong” for them to do so! Neither do I think any of us other bloggers here can do so. Yet – I hope! – most of us will agree that THAT is certainly wrong…. But it is NOT a matter of PROOF; not any kind of intellectual proof or logical or even scientific(medical?) proof: instead, the reason it is “wrong” is simply because this thing which, for lack of a better phrase, I refer to as “natural moral law”, is against such action.

Admittedly, it is very difficult to reach agreement about WHAT this natural law “says”. Some (few) people will, unfortunately, claim that such natural law does NOT oppose pedophilia. We all get shocked and indignant at that. Yet, there is no way to prove to such people, that they are doing something wrong, and even if they accept presence of a natural law, they will say this natural law does not prohibit it. In some societies (including too much of ours), people will deny that natural law is against men beating up their wives (hey, women are their property… so THEY are convinced; hence logical analysis can’t be use to prove them wrong). There are countless examples of things that ARE against this natural law, and you and I will agree on those; yet smart intelligent people will disagree and say “prove it”. It cannot be proven.

One more thing: there are loads of people “throughout history ” who have been pedophiles or wife beaters or murderers or have had sex with animals: and in many cases, accepted by society: THAT does not make it RIGHT. Hence the fact that there have been homosexuals throughout history, is irrelevant to this discussion: it is neither here nor there.

I am not passing judgment, by the way. It is wrong, but all of us do wrong and cannot look down on anyone else. We CAN, and MUST, however, call a wrong a wrong.

So even if one assumes that there is a genetic connection: well, it still doesn’t jusify acting upon one’s wrong tendencies. The issue of genetics is thus irrelvant here; what IS relevant is simply the fact that heterosexuality (within a monogamous marriage) is the norm of humanity; the norm of our human nature. There is nothing more to it.

How is homosexuality wrong? Its their life and its their love and that’s a beautiful thing. There have been homosexuals throughout history and the fact that they’re a minority doesn’t make them ‘wrong’. If you want to have sex only within heterosexual marriage that’s your business, more power to you. I just don’t think you have any right telling consenting adults that their love is wrong. Why do you really care?

Secondly, even if there was SOME genetic determination, one must keep in mind it is not absolute. That is, there might be one person who is more inclined in one direction or the other; but that’s all – it isn’t an absolute. Even among “normal” heterosexuals, there are “levels” (for lack of a better word) of sexuality: thus the stereotypical macho man versus a more wimpy man – but both are hetero… same for females.

More relevant however, consider these are examples of genetics: genetics do (probably) to some extent determine whether a person is violent or peaceful: however that does NOT give an excuse to one person to beat up his wife (or her husband!) or the right to act upon his/her violent nature in any way; instead, both people, regardless of the “it’s my genes” excuse, has an equal responsibility to avoid violence, because avoidance of violence is the accepted “norm” of humanity. (Yes, if you’re a Christian it’d be easier to accept that this is the norm for humanity; same with all other major religions; however, even if one is not a believer, the fact is it is a HUMAN norm, nothing to do with religion, which defines the fact that avoidance of violence is the ‘correct thing to do”.)

Thus, one’s propensity to be more violent than average, due to one’s genetic makeup, is NOT an excuse; one is still under obligation to do the right thing. One more example: some people are more likely than others to “need” some sort of ego gratification by having multiple partners: such people are more likely to be unfaithful in marriage – and it is quite possible that there is a genetic connection here. Does that make it OK for them to cheat? NO, a resounding NO. Similarly, EVEN if homosexual/lesbian orientation WAS somewhat determined by one’s genes, that does not lead us to conclude that therefore it is ok for such people to ACT upon that tendency; no more than the violent person or the unfaithful person has no right to act upon his/her tendency of violence or tendency to cheat.

So even if one assumes that there is a genetic connection: well, it still doesn’t jusify acting upon one’s wrong tendencies. The issue of genetics is thus irrelvant here; what IS relevant is simply the fact that heterosexuality (within a monogamous marriage) is the norm of humanity; the norm of our human nature. There is nothing more to it.

Wikipedia’s entry on MSM and WSW:

I have already given a few examples of opposing research already.

There are problems with twin studies, the hypothalamus study, the middle ear study, the longer-finger and what-not. You can find it all over the web.

Dont categorically state that i have misinterpreted anything. I also never said that homosexuality is pure choice.
In your last message you have stated that there is a significant (there’s that word again!) environmental component. That is a more balanced view to take, and i agree with you.

I dont believe that simple persistence is any means by which one should win an argument, so cheers!

Choice is mostly left to philosophers and it doesn’t play into most biological research. You’ve misinterpreted the entire field of genetics vs environment research.

This being a blog post it has no particular obligation to include opposing research, but I have tried to look. I’d be interested if you could find anything serious and peer-review that posits no or insignificant genetic component to homosexuality. The best I can find is that the contribution of genes to homosexuality is unclear (which I agree with), but no one says that there is no genetic component. No scientist would say that any trait is a pure choice (extroversion, intelligence, memory), and the cultural bias against homosexuality is the only thing that makes this issue. Almost every trait has a genetic component, some more significant than others. Saying that homosexuality is a pure choice is an interesting philosophical position, but it has no backing in science.

That is, it’s hard to make a ‘choice’ when you’re hypothalamus is wired funny.

This line, interpreted, would mean that the genetic component of homosexuality inhibits the choice of the individual. Thus, i dont believe i misinterpreted.

Scientific data is often manipulated according to bias.

If you wanted people to judge solely by research then you would have included both sides of the story, instead of research simply supporting your point of view.

I said “your portrayal of homosexuality as being largely genetic, and controlled by genes in the same way as hair colour is, is inappropriate.”

This is a wholesale misinterpretation, and putting words in my mouth. I never said ‘largely genetic’, that’s your misinterpretation. None of the studies say that. All I’ve said is genetic component. I never compared homosexuality to hair color or physical traits, only to complex traits like extroversion. If you want to argue against a straw man that’s fine, but that’s not the argument at hand.

Whether homosexuality having a genetic component ‘hurts’ people is an interesting assertion, but I think people can look at the research and decide for themselves.

If you’re going to reject statistics outright the it’s a matter of belief for you. There’s no need to debate here. However, I believe that science enables us to see beyond our own noses and immediate experiences to see how things really are.

stress on largely genetic. I didnt say discussing the genetic component of homosexuality is inappropriate. There may be a genetic component, but the degree of significance is still been researched.

The number of cases of spontaneous reversal may be insignificant statistically. But that’s just it. Its only insignificant statistically. Statistics doesnt place value on an individual. Even if it is just one person, you should not give the impression that his sexual orientation was fixed upon him from birth. We’ll have parents doing scans on foetus for the ‘homo’ gene now!

(There are christian testimonies of spontaneous reversal if you are willing to include them in the ‘statistically insignificant’ list.)

It may be inappropriate to discuss the genetic component of homosexuality, but it is not inaccurate. There is most certainly a genetic component, and its significance is slowly being demonstrated.

I am not anti-gay. Read my comments. What i am trying to say is that, your portrayal of homosexuality as being largely genetic, and controlled by genes in the same way as hair colour is, is inappropriate. Do not make people think that they are born a certain way and thus they have to be that way. Its a person’s prerogative.