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).

1. Highly immoral.
2. Normal, they have been around for ever.
3. Even if it is generic, inheritance is not certain due to two parents, and many things being either polygenteitc or eipgenetic. Secondly identity is usually built as a form of separation from parents.
4. Silly. There is free will. It is demonstrable. Arguments to the contrary are illogical.

Or rather than constructing convoluted arguments, just let people be who they are.

Well at no point did I mean to say that they shouldn't be who they are. I believe an individual can do as he/she wishes and though people can criticize them for it, they can't be forced to change. I don't criticize these LGBTA groups at all, in fact I support their current cause wholeheartedly. My questions are meant to be problems that arise once we've accepted them as a legitimate part of the society. My whole point is that they deserve equal rights and everything, but we should still consider that their variations are not the norm and what can be the potential issues that arise. I don't accept these things blindly like the left does, even if I do end up agreeing with the left most of the time.

1. I would rather not answer the question I posed yet. But consider retarded children. People choose to abort these. Would you consider this immoral as well? Now, there's a whole world of difference between sexual orientation and intelligence defficiency, primarily because the latter in and of itself impedes on some level on the well-being of the child and the parents and people in general (do not try to counterargue this, it's true no matter how one feels for these people), while the former does not. Nevertheless, I'd like to know whether your position remains the same with the special children in consideration or if it's changed.

Also, just because you accept people as they are, that doesn't mean that we as a society shouldn't strive for a more efficient human. That's another thing that leftists will probably disagree about, but it's worth considering.

2. Retarded children and disease-ridden people have also been around forever. This adds nothing to your argument. This is the exact thing I referred to when I said I don't think "it's a choice" is a suitable defense. They clearly should be normal in view of the law and they should not be mistreated by others due to their condition, but the issue I'm considering is different. Please follow my logic here:

There's a person who thinks she is Thomas Edison. In fact, there's a whole group of people who believe themselves to be Thomas Edison. Despite of all evidence to the contrary, they claim they feel like Thomas Edison. What would you label this group of people? If you would say anything other than confused or crazy, you're lying. Is it a bad thing that they feel like Thomas Edison, despite of evidence to the contrary? No. Is it normal? No. Should they be fixed? If they desire so, yes. If they enjoy feeling they're Thomas Edison, then they should be left alone. If we found a way to fix this state for future people so that they don't think they're Thomas Edison, should we? Would be controversial, and that's the point of my question here. I personally believe we should, but then again I personally believe a lot of controversial things so I don't want the Thomas Edison community to label me as a hater of their group, because it's nothing personal.

The transgender group of people can and should be able to do as they wish with their body. This doesn't mean that we should or shouldn't take steps to finalize that state if we could. You see what I'm doing? The two issues are separate. Right now in the world the debate is on the first issue (whether their personalities should be rejected or not), but I'm talking about the second issue (whether, if we could, we should end the deviation).

3. Just to be clear, I am not asking this question in a rethorical manner (as in, I don't pressupose an answer when I asked it). I don't have sufficient information to decide one way or the other, and the feelings I may have one way or the other are deceptive. In general, we should get rid of those. In a way, this was meant to be a trick question; we don't have enough information yet, so to say that the children wouldn't aqquire some psychological or genetic issue is unfounded at best, even if in all likelyhood it ends up being the right answer.

4. You addressed a very small part of my argument. I said you don't even have to accept my premise that there is no free will (which is a debate perhaps for another time; would love to see your arguments for free will. No sarcasm) to accept my conclusion that the "it's not a choice" defense is not well thought out. My argument here is that the LGBTA communities should focus on the fact that their variations are in no way harmful (again, so far as is reasonable) as their main argument so that their defense is better and without holes that the conservative right can attack (which they can and do).

With this post I hope to further clarify that I MEAN NO MALICE TO THE LGBTA GROUPS. I am merely asking questions that I think should be deal with.

First of all - I don't know why you bring up science in your OP. You ask moral questions (except maybe 3, but more to it later), and science doesn't help with moral questions. Morals are basically a decision on what is moral (right) or not moral (wrong). We seldom really decide about our morals, they are mostly learned and assembled from our surroundings. Also people tend to have different morals, but usually you have for most questions a common moral in the society. For instance usually it would be considered immoral if I kill someone (except defending myself). That this is immoral is the moral of the majority. These majority morals tend to change over time, we clearly not have the same morals as in the middle age.

1. We have no clear majority morals on the topic of abortion. Majority morals on this topic differ between countries, age groups and religious beliefs. But usually the fetus is not considered. If you say abortion is wrong, then it is wrong in this case. If you say abortion is the decision of the woman (in a certain timeframe since inception), then it doesn't matter if she uses additional information. Sometimes other factors are weighed in, like if the child is from a rape (I don't really understand this, it doesn't seem to be right - if you believe abortion is wrong because of the rights of the fetus, it is wrong even if it came from rape, but that wasn't the question here) or there is some threat to the health of the women through the pregnancy. so I say, it doesn't matter for the question of abortion.

2. Well, should someone who tends to be depressive be considered sick? How about women that tend not to follow the orders of their husband? Or people that are opposing the government? In different times some of these things were considered an illness, sometimes not. So that follows the same category. Following the todays majority morals it would be considered normal, as nobody is harmed by gender identification.

3. What is the question here? Are these things genetic? I don't know. If they are genetic, would it affect children? Yes, as genes get inherited. But it may be more complicated, even if it is genetic, it may not be simple parents are transgender -> children are also transgender. Biological inheritance can be more complicated than that.

4. Whether or not LGBTA or being criminal is a choice or not - it doesn't matter here. Criminals harm other. Even if they have no choice about it, we as a society have to do something about it. LGBTA-people don't harm others. So it doesn't matter. They simply don't need a "defense".

The only thing i think, its this would be a amazing world if there was no hate for sexual orientation & origine from people.

2 of my many friend is homosexual, and they nice ppl and nothing should count more then this.

my english not this good so i can't really reply to your 4 pts, but in 1, very immoral, its like when hitler wanted race specific birth.

Tagged

Tagged. Seems like an intelligent post.

1. it is immoral because it shouldn't matter whether they are gay or straight. They are still a person after all. If anything, abortions should be made on medical or financial grounds only. Also, suggesting there is a cure to being gay suggests that it is wrong but this is just how some people are. Also, i don't think the gay population will ever get high enough to impact the population trends.

2. Yes all non-straight people should be considered normal. There is no need to discriminate someone because of their sexual believes. If catholic priests can get away with being child molesters, why do people discriminate against gays, lesbians, trannies etc.? Also, i'm not sure if you could make a man feel like a man if they think they feel like a women. What would you do?

3. If they are good parents then why does it matter? I doubt it is any different to a kid who has 1 parent or even an orphan.

4. People can try to be gay or whatever but to some people it just don't feel right, others it clearly does feel right. But i'm not sure if it's down to a gene or not. On the other hand, Criminals Commit Crimes Partly because of the environment they grew up in. Like Serial Killers grew up to drunk and abusive parents most of the time. But for criminals, i think there is more free will as it's up to them to commit the act or not regardless of their childhood. Gays are just gay but criminals can choose to not do a crime if they want to. 

I don't see why it would be any more or less immoral than abortion for any other reason. That is, if you think abortion is a valid way to exercise more control over reproductive choices, then it should be fine to abort a pregnancy based on the desire to have a particular sort of "designer" child. Why should some things be left up to fate and not others?

This is something I've pondered recently in a somewhat different context when some feminists were decrying how sex selective abortions devalue girls. Well, first of all, in an economic sense it kind of does just the opposite as the demand for marriageable women eventually outstrips demand. But while there are obvious huge implications for a society that has more men than women, it's pretty tough to argue that selective abortions devalue certain types of babies while maintaining that abortion doesn't devalue life itself.

1. Immoral
2. Normal
3. It may affect them, but who cares?
4. Not sure what the question was in this one. But I believe that pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Any action on this attraction will hurt the child, and anyone associated with that child. Two consenting adults can have a relationship regardless of their gender. However pedophiles are damaged, dangerous individuals who I don't believe can be rehabilitated. In my very strong opinion, the only option is to kill any pedophile who acts on any urges he or she might have. There is no need for torture or anything sadistic, but a 'clean' execution is the only way to purge society of these people or at least deter them from acting on any impulses they might have.