Hello everybody,
Ok so lately I've been thinking about how science and truth in general are not best served by ideologies, inspired by a SKEPTIC e-magazine article.
Most of the rational, common-sense people know well about how some of the political right distort or ignore science to further political beliefs (e.g. global warming, evolution, etc.). Something that is not mentioned often is how some ideologies from the left also disregard science or fail to use it when the truth may not be favorable (e.g. organic is better, males and females are equal, etc.). I am not saying that science contradicts some of the statements from the left, but even the mere questioning of one of these assertions brings about huge backlash from others (for example, try being a scientist and question that whites and blacks may not have equal capabilities at everything, you'd lose all respect just like one of the discoverers of DNA did). Science is best served by questioning and using evidence. Even if blacks and whites, or males and females, or any other two groups do have the same capabilities, this is something that should be answered by research and not by claiming what should be right or fair.
ANYWAYS,
I'm making this topic to discuss, objectively and rationally, what it really means to accept homosexuality and other related variations (such as bisexuality, asexuality, etc.). Before the leftists start to burn me, here are the ground rules and facts. I will not discuss these ground rules and facts because the topic is meant to discuss these variations at a deeper level than the usual Facebook rant. I also encourage other people in this topic to follow these guidelines so we don't get sidetracked in arguments that never end. These are:
- No theological arguments. No sin, no image in the form of god, no hell, nothing that has to do with god.
- The related disorders in sexual orientation or gender identification are not chosen; that is, homo is not a choice. It's some combination of genetics and early childhood environment, possibly excluding the later (Please do not give me hell for the use of the word "disorder" here, I mean it with no malice).
- LGBA people are capable of raising children in the same way as heterosexual couples, at least in the sense that their sexual orientations do not influence upon their children uprising in and of themselves (there are of course, indirect effects caused by homophobia and stuff like that)
- We will not discuss whether or not LGBTA people should have the same rights to marriage and related things as straight people do. It is clear they do to anyone with any sense, assuming that the percentage of the population that is LGA doesn't become the mayority (which it won't since it's not a choice).
Alright with those out of the way, here's what I've been considering lately:
1. Suppose that the science of the brain and genes advances far enough that one can with a very high degree of accuracy predict the sexual orientation of a child still on the womb. Is abortion of this child on the grounds that the child has a particular sexual orientation (can be any sex orientation) an immoral thing? Is it moral? Along the same lines, if there were some sort of cure against homosexuality, asexuality, or transgender tendency, should it be administered? Should it be enforced? This last question is only applicable in the hypothetical sense that the LGBTA population has grown to a very high percentage of the population, otherwise it is nonsense.
2. Sexual orientation and gender identification are not the same issues. For instance, a man who feels he is a woman may be homosexual or heterosexual or asexual or bisexual. As such, I feel that differentiation is particularly important in some of these issues. It is known that transgender people have particular brain patterns. Question is: Assume sexual orientation differences are tolerated and respected worldwide in the sense that they're considered normal. Should transgender people be considered normal as well, or be treated as sick? Note that by this I don't mean that they should be treated worse than others, or that they should have less rights. By considering them sick, I'm asking whether their situation demands that society resolve their gender identification issues, so that a physical man that feels like a woman is able to feel like a man, or that a physical woman that feels like a man is able to feel like a woman. Moreover, how much exactly do you think transgender people are affected by social conditioning?
3. If gender identification issues have a strong psychological or genetical background, it would be not be unreasonable to question whether these issues would affect the children of transgendered people (recall that transgendered people can have real children). What do you think?
4. If there is no free will, or alternatively if the factors that decide a person's sexuality, personality, etc. are not in control of said person, then the "it's not a choice" defense is not a defense, as it could be used for rapists, pedophiles, or murderers who commit these crimes out of a desire they can't control. Now, before you scream at me, I'm not comparing LGBTA people to criminals, I'm simply showing the logical mistake here. In fact, since I believe there is no free will, then none of these things are choices, but we don't have to go so far to see this. It suffices to realize that these personalities are "made" by certain things out of people's control.
So since none of these things are choices, then I believe that the defense for the rights of LGBTA people should come from the fact that their desires and actions are not harmful (again, so long as they don't represent a very large part of the population) to anybody in and of themselves. They aren't worse or better people. However, I believe that they really should drop the "it's not a choice" defense, since that is not a legitimate defense, and it weakens their overall argument.
***
Alright that's all I have for now. Please discuss and answer any or all of the questions I posited above. Try to keep it civil and rational. You are encouraged to come up with your own discussion points as well, so long as they don't derail the topic into lower arguments (like if it's ok or not to be gay).
