Philosophical Arguments on Homosexuality

[charged to lead a group on homosexuality; did own research by pittling around]


===========================DEFINITONS==============================


Homosexual: having sexual attraction to only those of the same sex.


=======================SECULAR ARGUMENT=============================

(1) homosexuality is natural
(2) whatever is natural is good [tacit]
(3) homosexuality is good


REFUTATION OF PREMISE 2
A. Assp: whatever is natural is necessarily good OR 1. Assp: whatever is natural is necessarily good
B. cancers & diseases are bad. 2. sin is bad
C. cancers & disease are natural. 3. sin is natural
D. cancers & diseases are good (A & C) 4. sin is good (1 & 3)
E. cancers & diseases are good & bad (B & D) 5. sin is good & bad (2 & 4)
Contradiction Contradiction
F. Not the case that whatever is natural is necessarily good. 6. It is not the case that whatever is natural is necessarily good.

* This is a different claim than saying "whatever is good is necessarily natural." I might still make this claim in "some sense"
* Let no man nor woman use the "you can see homosexuality in nature" argument, for it always has the tacit premise "natural is good"
* A common theme is to cite 100 case studies of homosexuality in other cultures. Laughably,
I might cite 100 case studies for murder yet they accept the former and reject the latter as
being morally acceptable.

JUSTIFCATION OF PREMISE 1
x. 52% of identical twins are likely of being gay if one is.
* in comparison with 22% for fraternal twins and 11% for unrelated (e.g.adopted) brothers
y. If the likelihood of individuals being gay who share genes is higher than those who do not, then being gay is genetically caused.
z. Being gay is genetically caused (A & B)

REFUTATION OF PREMISE 1
i. If being gay is entirely determined by genes, then individuals having 100% of the same genes will both be gay.
ii. Not all identical twins are gay if one is.
iii. Being gay is not entirely determined by genes.

RE-JUSTIFICATION
y. "...then being gay is partially genetically caused.
* research: identical twins 52%, chromosome X28, chromosome cluster pattern of 7, 8, & 10

REFUTATION OF RE-JUSTIFICATION
m. things that have partial effect in causality can be necessary, sufficient, or have a role but be neither
n. if a thing plays a necessary role in causing homosexuality, then an individual being homosexual means that thing is present.
o. if a thing plays a sufficient role in causing homosexuality, then that thing's presence means the individual is gay.
p. the presence of these suggestions have not been shown to always be in homosexuals nor have homosexuals been shown to always have them.
q. the current research has not found necessary nor sufficient causes for homosexuality.
* Furthermore, Hamer (x28 researcher and a homosexual [so no motive to lie I would presume]) says his research proved little if not nothing
* In 2005 Mutanski repeated the test with a larger sample and found no significant different between x28 in homosexuals and heterosexuals
* However, it did show some evidence for differences in homosexuals combinations of chromosome 7q36, 8p12, and 10q26

ENGUARDE
* science deals with correlations and does not conclude with statements about necessary nor sufficient causes. Even so...

u. 95% confidence interval is standard for scientific "proof" in any research
v. test of twins was research
w. twin test was held up to 95% confidence interval

RETORT
* the end of science practically speaking is a 95% confidence interval in which scientists and everyday people alike stop saying "correlate" and use the word "cause. Even so...

i. id twin test was held up to 95% confidence interval (w)
ii. proof says 52% of id twins are homosexual if counterpart is
iii. id twins to a 95% confidence interval shows 52% of id twins are homosexual if counterpart is
iv. id twins have 100% of the same genes
v. cannot be said homosexuality is completely genetically causal, partial is still possible but not proven



======================UNDERSTANDING THE CONCLUSION======================================

POSSIBILITIES THAT CAN STILL MEAN CAUSALITY

* Whether or not genes are expressed (genotype vs phenotype) is a matter of penetrance.
* The amount of expression of the gene can change the quantity or quality of the gene's expression.
* Assuming such a gene exists, these can explain slightly effeminate to super-fab homosexuality as well as bisexuality
* Epigenetics suggests certain genes get "turned on or off" from non-genetic factors (e.g. environment, nurture, action, etc.)
* this field of genetics is in serious research mode right now, check out The Outsider magazine's article on long distance human running genes



WHAT TO BE AWARE OF

* because a thing is possible does not mean it is actual
EG.1 "It's possible I can fly but that doesn't mean I can."
EG.2 "It's possible coffee caused me to stay up all night but that doesn't mean it did."
* burden of proof is upon the person making the claim because that person is the one asserting truth of the proposition
EG.1 "Crocodile gods once ruled Egypt with an iron claw and 80's jump suits."
EG.2 "Every night I swim across the clouds with packs of angel dingos."
* because a thing cannot be disproven does not mean it is true
EG.1 "If you can't disprove God's existence then He must exist.
EG.2 "It's possible homosexuality is caused by genes in some part and we haven't discovered its penetrance likelihood and/or a trigger for it yet."



===========================DISCUSSION: ASSUME PARTIAL CAUSALITY=============================

For the sake of discussion: (hypothalamus research)

(1) ASSP: partial genetic causality has been found for homosexuality -- that is to say it is in some way 'natural'
(2) If penetrance, then homosexuality might be along the lines of eye color or hand coordination.
* How would you read Scripture? Change your ideas? Why or why not?
(3) If something along the lines of epigenetics, then it could be turned on or off.
* If turned on/off by habitual actions (e.g. sheer will power and/or repeated action)
* If turned on/off by environmental factors (e.g. overdose of estrogen or lack of testosterone during pregnancy; multiple sons)
* If turned on/off by nurturing factors (e.g. something Oedipusian or Freudian)
THEN -- would you change your ideas? Justify your claim.



===========================NATURAL ARGUMENT REVISITED===============================

* If we are to deal with what is "natural," then we need to specify if it is "naturally good" or "naturally bad" since "natural" unqualified is not necessarilY either.




EVOLUTIONARY STANDPOINT

(i) If a trait increases the likelihood of survival, then it is "naturally good" and if one prohibits the likelihood of survival then it is "naturally bad."
(ii) Homosexuality prevents the survival of a species
A. homosexuality prevents reproduction.
B. reproduction is necessary for the survival of a species
C. homosexuality prevents the survival of a species
(iii) Homosexuality is naturally bad. (i & ii)

&

(x) Some theories suggest the gay gene was advantageous to primitive humans as "gay uncle caretakers" or actually a "bisexual gene to trick alpha males so they can get the women while the other men hunt gene."
(y) If these are the case, then the gay gene would be advantageous.
(z) ...

Problem: No conclusion can be drawn from the second argument because such theories are possibilities with no scientific evidence. We cannot say any ARE the case, so the THEN of the statement cannot be said to follow. Dawkins makes me giggle with these theories though.If one of these theories can be proven scientifically, then it would come to pass that we have an antinomy in which we have two arguments that have contradictory conclusions. Neither in this case disproves the other, since arguments disprove premises, not conclusions. In such a case further research would need to be done to disprove one. If it be the bisexual gene that evolved into a homosexual gene then there never was an advantageous homosexual gene, merely an advantageous bisexual gene. Even then we must ask why it evolved into a gene that is not advantageous. And if this be the case then the first argument still holds water.




ETHICAL STANDPOINT (different approach to nature)

(1) If an action is good or evil, then it is due to the action being in part controlled or willed by the individual.
* contrapositive: "if something is uncontrollable, then it is neither good nor evil"
* This does not mean the individual is amoral, merely the action is amoral
* EG: Digestion is neither good nor evil, it is an involuntary action. Murder is evil, it requires a will by definition.
(2) Homosexuality is due to an uncontrollable genetic nature. (ASSP)
(3) Homosexuality is neither good nor evil.




ETHICAL COUNTER-ARGUMENT
(1) Homosexuality is due to a nature being triggered.
(2) If the trigger occurred during pregnancy other environmental factors the individual was born into, then the expression of the nature could be controlled.
* this is to say that it was mere potential and not actualized nature, or possibility not actuality
(3) If the trigger occurred due to actions of the individuals own will and/or habituated actions, then the expression of the nature could be controlled.
(4) If (2), then the expression was caused by someone other than the individual.
(5) If (3), then the expression was caused by the individual.
(6) If (4), then the individual is not at fault and cannot be said to be good nor evil by the "ethical standpoint argument."
(7) If (5), then the individual is at fault and can be said to be good or evil


(2) Homosexuality in some part is genetically caused. (ASSP)
(3) The person cannot be morally blamed for their homosexuality.
* EG: A person driving down the road hits a child. They are a cause of the child's death, but so is the child. Assuming the person followed all laws we say the driver was an accidental cause and not morally at fault for the child's death, though physically he assisted in the causation of the death.
* QUESTION: What types of triggering actions could the individual be held accountable for? How much are they responsible if their gene makes them susceptible to the change whereas the same action by another individual would not experience the change?



======================PROBLEM WITH SOCIAL/ETHICAL DARWINISM FROM A LOGICAL STANDPOINT=================================

Most of it commits the appeal to nature fallacy(1), naturalistic fallacy(2), and/or the is-ought problem (3).

1. Merely because a thing is natural doesn't necessitate it is good, QED in first example.
2. Equating nature with good often results in empty tautologies / circular reasoning.
Q: What's nature?
A: Whatever is good.
Q: Well what's good?
A: Whatever is natural.
3. We cannot logically draw an imperative conclusion from a series of observatory is-statements.
1. blah blah is the case.
2. If blah blah is the case then we just can't be havin' that now can we?
3. we ought to yadda yiddy



====================================CONCLUSIONS SO FAR============================

The natural argument for homosexuality fails.

Science makes amoral, value-free judgments about what is via reductio ad absurdum by observational data. When people take conclusions and say "we ought to accept X" based on the conclusion, they step outside the bounds of their argument and are no longer doing science, and their conclusion does not follow from their premises (is-to-ought). Scientific conclusions may be used in moral arguments but ethics remains it's own separate science which cannot be discerned from any amount of discovery. One must either use some form of sentimental value judgment in beginning to produce an ethic or try to deduce some form of ethic which then might take scientific conclusions into account.


================================MORE NOTABLE RESEARCH==================================

The most effective research that suggests a complete biological cause or partially biological and partially pre-natal causation for sexual orientation would be those done on the neurons of the hypothalamus (INAH3). Those of heterosexual men were thought to be significantly larger than those of homosexual men and remarkably similar to that of heterosexual women. However, the sampling was rather shoddy work and many men were "presumed" to be heterosexual which could not be verified due to their post-mortem volunteering. The test was repeated in 2001 with much of the same sampling discipline but none of the results were statistically significant.

Hormone tests in the past have given inconsistent results although a new study in 2010 "Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation" claims to have discovered a completely biological cause during the intrateurine period when the fetal brain develops. There is nothing new about this hypothesis merely the claim that it has been proven this time. Time will tell.

Current hype about fruit flies that scientists have turned "gay." Only works on males and if other males removed they will mate with females. No research done on whether or not the gene which is similar in human beings will have a similar effect. Often cited as somehow conclusive, another poor natural argument not to mention it has forced bisexual behavior at best and even then it doesn't apply to humans (categorical error I would think depending on DNA similarity).



=======================================================================================
===================================HOLY ASSUMPTIONS====================================
=======================================================================================

Inerrancy of Scripture

==========================RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT========================
Romans 1:26-28
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

ROMANS ARGUMENT
1. Homosexual lusts and acts are against nature.
2. Whatever is against nature is against God. [tacit]
3. Homosexual lusts and acts are against God.
4. Whatever is against God is evil.
5. Homosexual lusts and acts are evil.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT
1. It is not the case that whatever is natural is necessarily good.
2. Whatever is not necessarily good is not of God. *something wrong with this? wording? soundness?
3. It is not the case that whatever is natural is necessarily of God.
* refutation of ROMANS-arg (2)

RESPONSE to COUNTER-ARGUMENT
ASSP: Whatever is not necessarily good is not of God.
1. Sex is bad outside of a marriage covenant.
2. Sex is good inside one.
3. Anything that is bad in some situations and good in others is not necessarily good.
4. Sex isn't necessarily good.
5. Sex is not of God.
6. God made sex.
7. Sex is both of and not of God.
* Contradiction
8. It's not the case that Whatever is not necessarily good is not necessarily of God.

ARGUMENT
7. It's not the case that whatever is necessarily good is of God [double negation]
8. If (7), then good and God are separate * Euthyphro's Paradox
9. If good and God are separate, then things are good because God says so or God follows the good.
10. If things are good because God says so, then the good is arbitrary, not necessary.
11. If God follows the good, then he is not the ultimate thing.
12. Good is necessary, not arbitrary.
13. God is ultimate thing.
14. Not the case that good and God are separate. (MT of 10, 11 using 12, 13)
15. Whatever is necessarily good is necessarily of God. (MT of 8, using 14)


===========================ANTINOMY & OTHER PROBLEMS================================================

8 & 15 are contradictory.
8 must be true because to assume otherwise results in contradiction.
8 results in contradiction if held true at 15

To hold 8 true or false ends up in contradiction, a paradox
Most paradoxes are results of asking the wrong question or stating things in such a way that it is a self-refuting statement.

*** Whatever is not necessarily good is not of God. ***
add a necessarily of God - this accounts for perversion of that which God created as well as bringing man-made things to goodness
*** Whatever is not necessarily good is not necessarily of God. ***

Something is wrong with my wording and particular use of necessary as applied to these two different words. I need to deal with this but it's unnecessary :) to do so right now. For there is yet another problem I have noticed:


The two sides of the argument seem to be using the word "nature" differently:


DEFINITION DISCUSSION
EG.1 I enjoy viewing nature.
EG.2 Nature is the subject of hard sciences.
EG.3 It is the nature of fire to burn.
EG.4 It is the nature of a cup to hold liquid.

Nature(1): wilderness; environment
Nature(2): physical cosmos; everything that materially "is"
Nature(3): essential properties of a thing (analytic knowledge)
Nature(4): purpose of a thing; telos

============================Short lesson on causality===============================

Aristotle
4 types: final, efficient, formal, material
E.G. An Urn's causes are to hold water, artist, circle, clay - respectively.
Christian says our causes are to be w/ God, parents, soul/spirit, sperm/egg - respectively
Francis Bacon and the introduction of inductive reasoning and the birth of hard sciences in 1500's sought to reject formal and final causes
from an evolutionary standpoint we might say final cause of any thing is to survive
I would uphold the formal causes from a molecular standpoint, order of matter can change elements, compounds, etc.
e.g. trans-fats vs other fats, same elements in play, the difference is the ordering of them (bent connection vs straight)

1. "It's natural" in pro-homoexual argument uses genes as Nature(3)
2. Nature(4) from genetic standpoint is always "for survival in such and such circumstances" and is caused by Nature(3)
3. Pro-homosexual arguments then want to say the root of Nature(4) is Nature(3) which is genetic.

x. "Natural use" in Romans uses sex as Nature(4)
y. Nature(4) from religious standpoint is always "to bring about communion with God."
z. "Natural use" of sex in Romans is to bring about communion with God.


=======================Christian Nature(3) Pro-Homosexual Argument=================================
A - original sin gives me a nature to sin ( "sin nature" )
B - Nature(3) cannot be changed. (essential not accidental qualities)
1. nature is of essential qualities
2. essenial qualities are necessary qualities of a thing
3. necessity of a thing is what makes a thing itself
4. nature is what makes a thing itself
5. if nature could change, then a thing would not be itself
6. a thing cannot be other than itself (principle of identity: x can never be not-x)
7. nature cannot change (mt 5,6)
C - One cannot be held accountable for what cannot be changed.
D - One cannot be held accountable for their nature.
E - Person X's homosexuality is due to their sin nature [Nature(3)]
F - Person X cannot be held accountable for their homosexuality.


REFUTATION OF SIN-NATURE
1. Only God can create.
2. Man is not God.
3. Thus, man cannot create.
4. God created our Nature(3).
5. If "Sin nature" exists, then either God created an evil Nature(3) or we did.
--- 6. ASSP: God created evil Nature(3)
| 7. Evil is the privation of Good.
| 8. God is Good.
| 9. If something creates an evil Nature(3), then the creator is also evil.
| 10. God is evil (6, 9)
| 11. God is Good and Evil (8, 10)
| *Contradiction
--- 12. Reject ASSP: It is not the case that God created evil Nature(3).
13. We did not create an evil Nature(3) (DS 3, 5)
14. Neither we nor God created an evil Nature(3). (Conj 12, 13)
15. There is no "sin nature." (MT 5, 14)


We end here. There is still much discussion on what "nature" means and what types of causality exist in reality, as well as research to be done genetically. I'll conclude that there is no evidence to suggest full causality, only partial, but even then the question of accountability, of whether or not it is a choice or due to environmental factors is left open. In one collegiate psychology of sexuality textbook their conclusion was that none of the traditional environmental factors have been shown to determine sexuality. They suggested biological factors should be researched, that perhaps an answer would lie there. This is tandem with the human genome project and the geneticists claim that there is no gene that fully determines sexuality, neither sufficiently nor necessarily, leaves geneticists pointing at psychologists hoping or answers. Unfortunately that leaves us with two sides pointing at the other and with us either shrugging in confusion or realizing the answer must lie elsewhere.







===========================================================================
=================================LINKS TO HELP=============================
===========================================================================

Philosophical Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Philosophical/Scientifc Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
* I use this type of argument once and it is the foundation for the scientific method. Know it before you say "science is" or "science says"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Genetic Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_%28genetics%29
Homosexual Studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation
http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5023/1034
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results

Value Judgment Articles Citing Cases & Making Arguments
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
http://creation.com/creationism-and-the-problem-of-homosexual-behaviour
* has good research sources on other factors effecting homosexuality, however, most sources are pre-Genome project so not up-to-date
http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ [video]
* Pretty funny actually. Dawkins cracks me up. He does do a good job at the end of noting the necessary conditions if a gene exists though.