Very Straight!

If LGBTQ doesn’t violate any moral principle but is in fact a moral issue, then denying LGBTQ its expression is immoral because it prevents us from a full experience of life. This must also be a sin because in denying a full experience of life, we have a diminished understanding of ourselves. A sin because we are icons of God and understanding ourselves is our only means of understanding God.

That’s as straight as it gets!

Tagged , ,

20 thoughts on “Very Straight!

  1. Greg says:

    Even if those conclusions you state about PERSONAL consequences are accurate, even if not provable, they don’t address the potential adverse consequences for others. A person may not experience adverse consequences resulting from a divorce, but if the children of the divorced person is/are emotionally harmed, then wouldn’t divorce be considered immoral?

    I also do not think anyone can demonstrate that there’s no “choice” involved in sexual orientation. For instance if a person gravitates toward same gender sexual orientation due to sexual abuse during childhood, wouldn’t that be an example of adverse consequences? Isn’t all sexual orientation a choice? Is sexual attraction provable as inherent?

    • Steven Hoyt says:

      no sexual orientation is from active contemplation. as far as we can tell, that’s just a brute fact. and what i haven’t said or implied is the inherentness of orientation or attraction. it does not matter.

      sexual abuse is harmful. if that lead someone to be homosexuality or heterosexual, it has no bearing on the morality of either. sexual abuse is immoral.

      so, what makes anything LGBTQ immoral?

      • Greg says:

        If one’s choice of LBGTQ is harmful to an innocent bystander, wouldn’t that be considered immoral?

      • Steven Hoyt says:

        one does not choose to be lesbian, bisexual, gay, trans, or queer. one can choose to have surgery, but that’s not all being trans entails.

        actions hurt people, not orientations. so once more, what is immoral here?

      • Greg says:

        I don’t think it can be proven that one doesn’t “choose” to adapt an LGBTQ lifestyle.

        If an action based on sexual orientation causes harm, then wouldn’t that action be considered immoral?

        (Sorry I posted this in the wrong place. There was no reply button to your immediately preceding comment).

      • Steven Hoyt says:

        yes, it can be proven. when did you decide to be heterosexual, greg?

        WHAT action, “based on sexual orientation”, is immoral, greg?

      • Greg says:

        When I was turned on by girls! 🙂 Is there evidence to demonstrate that sexual orientation is based on congenital rather than environmental factors? If it is environmental, then isn’t orientation ultimately based on a “choice?”

        What about LGBTQ couples who adopt children? We don’t know the adverse effect that may have on them.

        Don’t you think you’re making an argument about an unknown variable?

      • Steven Hoyt says:

        sounds like that’s when you realized, greg, not decided.

        again, asking if these are generic or environmental is non sequitur to the fact that we REALIZE our orientation in all cases and do not choose it.

        we know at least, from a 10 study of lesbian couples who adopted that there were zero instances of child abuse among a statistically relevant sample size.

        the thing is, greg, were talking about the morality of LGBT, not the morality of adoption. adoption has nothing to do with LGBT being moral or not. as it is though, i wonder how you’d go about saying some kind of abuse was because of orientation since, say with a heterosexual male, i wouldn’t blame anyone for molesting a child as a result of it. now, of you say “ah! but pedophilia is an orientation” then you’d be right … but then you’d have nothing but prejudice and special case pleadings to say either heterosexuality or homosexuality or trans, queer, et. al. are at all the same sort of thing.

        i’m no more making an argument about unknown variables than i am saying there nothing immoral about heterosexuality than anything else … because i measure them all with the same ethical stick.

        once more, what act can you attribute directly to LGBTQ and then show it violates a moral principle?

      • Steven Hoyt says:

        sorry, that’s a “10 year study”

      • Greg says:

        If LGBTQ sexual orientation results in adversely effecting the well-being of LBGTQ individuals or persons, or groups of people connected to the LGBTQ individuals in some way, then wouldn’t that cause LGBTQ to be considered as immoral in the same way that abuse or divorce is considered immoral?

        I think I understand what you’re saying in that LGBTQ lifestyles are not immoral in themselves; yet if the fruit of those lifestyles result in similar systemic harm as what we find in communities where the norm of traditional nuclear families is increasingly rare, then wouldn’t that be an equally immoral thing?

      • Steven Hoyt says:

        greg, you keep saying the same thing. hear me: orientation cases WHAT adversity? in other words, tell me what orientations are immoral and which aren’t and then why.

      • Greg says:

        I’m simply suggesting that we don’t know that harm is not being done to innocent bystanders through LGBTQ behavior. That being the case, I don’t see how a case can be made that LGBTQ behavior is not immoral.

      • Steven Hoyt says:

        greg, that’s the fallacy of argument from silence. i can, for instance, merely assert LGBTQ is completely moral because we don’t know otherwise.

        it doesn’t work that way, greg.

        i can and however do say that orientation has nothing to do with morality. it simply is a way to say “i’m attached to” and merely noting it impacts no one in a moral way.

        second, we cannot say LGBTQ is immoral because we have to wait for some magic something. we CAN say that in every way we HAVE and CAN identify, no moral principle is violated. a VIOLATION must be implied or actual before we can say it is immoral.

        yet again, i am asking you specifically, that for all we DO know, WHAT makes LGBTQ immoral?

      • Steven Hoyt says:

        “i’m attracted to” … bad text gesturing again. sorry.

      • Greg says:

        You began by stating that LGBTQ behavior violates no moral principle, and used that premise to conclude that it is immoral to deny LGBTQ freedom of expression because it denies the LGBTQ person a full experience of life. I suggested that it may violate the moral principle of causing harm. You didn’t explain how it is proven to not cause harm. If harm is indeed a consequence, which hasn’t been disproven, then how can that facilitate full experience of life? If an established cultural norm is being challenged, then don’t you think the impetus is on the challenger to adequately defend that position? I don’t think your original post sufficiently makes your case. Maybe I’m wrong.

      • Steven Hoyt says:

        greg, of the behaviors associated with LGBTQ, what ***DOES*** cause harm. again, i assert there are none that i see which cause harm. the fact is, you AGREE and all you’ve been saying is there could be SOME case where harm is caused. you imply this “could be”, “it’s possible” suggestion is sufficient to cause us not only to doubt the morality of what we DO know, but of that we ought to say it is immoral.

        c.s. peirce in “some consequences of four incapacities” makes it clear that doubt must also justify itself because (given we can doubt anything) doubting merely because we can is “pretend doubt”.

        so, i ask you for the umpteenth time, what ACTUAL LGBTQ behaviors violate a moral principle.

        and yes, you are indeed wrong about onus. onus exists on ANYONE who makes an assertion and that assertion is questioned. this comes from “cooperative principles” from the likes of grice and others.

        my case is simply “i cannot agree LGBTQ is a moral issue because i don’t see that any associated behaviors violate any moral principles”.

        what’s compelling, greg, is you most certainly agree with my observation, since again, you don’t name anything actual and say that PERHAPS there are bad things LGBTQ causes we just don’t yet know about.

        again, pie in the sky, THAT argument holds for normative behavior too for PERHAPS there are bad things heterosexualism cause that we just yet don’t know about.

        again, to even SAY FROM THE BEGINNING that LGBTQ is anything but amoral, one must have EITHER an IMPLICATION of a real violation, or an ACTUAL example of a real violation of a moral principle.

        since you agree with my premises, you agree my conclusion is justified even if you personally think the conclusion is untrue.

        the question remains, greg, how on earth are you justifying your conclusion that LGBTQ is 1) a moral issue at all, and 2) is immoral in some way?

        you have peircean “pretend doubt”. what else?

  2. Greg says:

    I don’t think anyone can reasonably demonstrate that LGBTQ doesn’t violate any moral principle. If behavioral choices of one person adversely affect the well-being of that same person or other persons caught in the wake of those behavioral choices, then wouldn’t that qualify as a violation of a moral principle?

    • Steven Hoyt says:

      the principle would be harm. one could say, for instance, that LGBTQ have a huge rate of depression and suicide compared to other folks, one would possibly be entitled to say the “choice” of being LGBTQ is the cause of the negative consequence. however, studies show those rates are from the attitudes of others; usually conservative christians.

      two things become apparent. 1) we CAN say that LGBTQ relates to harm, and then may or may not be moral. 2) does a harmful CONSEQUENCE determine the morality of something, because if so, 3) this form of christianity is immoral and without it, no harm would befall LGBTQ, therefore, 4) LGBTQ and harm are only correlated, not causal.

    • Steven Hoyt says:

      decision orientation is not cognitively determined, so, there’s no choice involved. BEING LGBTQ is neither moral or immoral. it’s amoral.

      so, we talk about behaviors then and whether these are moral concerns. behaviors, we do have a measure of choice in.

      why ought a person acting on these venting be acting immorally, at least in principle?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: