Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
What I'm talking about re something being a choice is being able to choose as if we used a coin, etc. to decide. There are at least two options that we can choose between in a whim-like way if we like. Because if we're talking about reasons that more or less compel one option over another, that's not a choice in my view. It's only a choice if we at least COULD choose one option or another in a whim-like way.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
When did this turn into, yet another discussion on determinism?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 7:40 am Also, I literally could use a coin, or a random number generator (using odds versus evens as the decider, say), or using the seconds on my watch (again, odds versus evens, say), to determine whether I turn right or left on my bike. That's just the same thing I'm doing when I choose which way to turn on a whim (so the point of using a coin, random number generator, etc., would be that if someone doesn't believe that we can choose on a whim which way to turn, we could still demonstrate turning one way or the other at each intersection where the choice does not at all depend on at least internal (to us) deterministic factors), but I couldn't literally use a coin, or a random number generator, or the seconds on my watch, to determine whether I believe that P or that not-P.
What I'm talking about re something being a choice is being able to choose as if we used a coin, etc. to decide. There are at least two options that we can choose between in a whim-like way if we like. Because if we're talking about reasons that more or less compel one option over another, that's not a choice in my view. It's only a choice if we at least COULD choose one option or another in a whim-like way.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
I understand your point, but I don't think that's how the word "choose" is normally used. If (for example) you flipped a coin and "heads" caused you to turn left on your bike, you might say, "Yesterday, I CHOSE to go left at the intersection". But you can no longer go right -- the "choice" happened yesterday. Nonetheless, the sentence is not incoherent. Most of our choices are "chosen" for a reason, or for a number of reasons. They, like beliefs, are compelled by our use of reason, knowledge and logic. I'd suggest that doesn't disqualify us from using the word "choice" to describe our picking between two or more alternatives. Suppose you come to an intersection on your bike. You want to get to Prospect Park. You know of two ways, one of which is three blocks longer than the other. Because you want to get there as quickly as possible, you CHOOSE the shorter way. Perhaps you cannot help wanting to get there quicker, or knowing that one way is shorter, but I don't think that disqualifies you from using the word "choice" to describe your decision.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 7:40 am Also, I literally could use a coin, or a random number generator (using odds versus evens as the decider, say), or using the seconds on my watch (again, odds versus evens, say), to determine whether I turn right or left on my bike. That's just the same thing I'm doing when I choose which way to turn on a whim (so the point of using a coin, random number generator, etc., would be that if someone doesn't believe that we can choose on a whim which way to turn, we could still demonstrate turning one way or the other at each intersection where the choice does not at all depend on at least internal (to us) deterministic factors), but I couldn't literally use a coin, or a random number generator, or the seconds on my watch, to determine whether I believe that P or that not-P.
What I'm talking about re something being a choice is being able to choose as if we used a coin, etc. to decide. There are at least two options that we can choose between in a whim-like way if we like. Because if we're talking about reasons that more or less compel one option over another, that's not a choice in my view. It's only a choice if we at least COULD choose one option or another in a whim-like way.
Of course you can use words however you want -- but I CHOOSE to allow common usage to define them (because I choose to believe that language is more useful that way, although, as you suggest, I probably cannot believe otherwise).
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
It's only a choice if, at the time of the decision, it would be possible to make what's essentially a whim selection of an option you don't have good/compelling reasons for. You're not usually going to make that choice, but it needs to be possible to make it or there was no choice, despite appearances otherwise.Ecurb wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 11:07 amI understand your point, but I don't think that's how the word "choose" is normally used. If (for example) you flipped a coin and "heads" caused you to turn left on your bike, you might say, "Yesterday, I CHOSE to go left at the intersection". But you can no longer go right -- the "choice" happened yesterday. Nonetheless, the sentence is not incoherent. Most of our choices are "chosen" for a reason, or for a number of reasons. They, like beliefs, are compelled by our use of reason, knowledge and logic. I'd suggest that doesn't disqualify us from using the word "choice" to describe our picking between two or more alternatives. Suppose you come to an intersection on your bike. You want to get to Prospect Park. You know of two ways, one of which is three blocks longer than the other. Because you want to get there as quickly as possible, you CHOOSE the shorter way. Perhaps you cannot help wanting to get there quicker, or knowing that one way is shorter, but I don't think that disqualifies you from using the word "choice" to describe your decision.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 7:40 am Also, I literally could use a coin, or a random number generator (using odds versus evens as the decider, say), or using the seconds on my watch (again, odds versus evens, say), to determine whether I turn right or left on my bike. That's just the same thing I'm doing when I choose which way to turn on a whim (so the point of using a coin, random number generator, etc., would be that if someone doesn't believe that we can choose on a whim which way to turn, we could still demonstrate turning one way or the other at each intersection where the choice does not at all depend on at least internal (to us) deterministic factors), but I couldn't literally use a coin, or a random number generator, or the seconds on my watch, to determine whether I believe that P or that not-P.
What I'm talking about re something being a choice is being able to choose as if we used a coin, etc. to decide. There are at least two options that we can choose between in a whim-like way if we like. Because if we're talking about reasons that more or less compel one option over another, that's not a choice in my view. It's only a choice if we at least COULD choose one option or another in a whim-like way.
Of course you can use words however you want -- but I CHOOSE to allow common usage to define them (because I choose to believe that language is more useful that way, although, as you suggest, I probably cannot believe otherwise).
Well, belief never works that way for me. It's never possible for me to make a whim choice about what to believe (so that I from that point on believe it).
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
Sometimes choices are between options that we have reasons for re multiple incompatible outcomes.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
I am getting wound up by this thread because many posts speak about choice as if it mere random moves in a maze. In a way life has aspects of experimentation which can feel like random searching, especially in adolescence. But, what seems missing is the way in which issues of sexuality and preferences can be an emotional struggle of identity. In particular, some people from religious backgrounds struggle so much with sexual orientation, especially in some cultures. I have come across people who are rejected by family for their sexual orientation. I am also aware of this happening not just in Christian cultures, but many others too. I am not sure if anyone on this forum seems to understand that it is not a clear black and white as if deciding to go on a holiday or not. I have known a number of people who have become extremely unwell mentally in this searching.
It is a question which is about free will, in the extent of whether we choose anything, preferences and about actions. It is about the extent to which people may be lead subconsciously or consciously in making choices, and how much is compelled by the forces which come into play which may span the interplay of genetics and so many factors.
What really bothers me is that on forums, and not just this one, is sometimes LBGTQIA issues are seen like a playground on which members have fun and games and project so much onto 'others'. Also, by this thread question linking psychological causation and 'God' it blurs in a way which Hume describes as the is/ought fallacy. That is because analysis of natures and what is seen as acceptable in 'God's' point of view. I realise that my posts were ignored and I am left wondering am I the only person who is irritated by this thread, and if so, perhaps it is time for me to come away from the site, at least until this thread fades. But, it will be interesting to see what the person who started the thread will think, and how he will reply to the answers. I am not simply wishing for my post to be given attention, but with a view that the thread if seen online may be balanced and helpful rather than distressing for anyone who is struggling with the issues related to the topic.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
I'm not sure why you're getting wound up by it. First, do you think that anyone in the thread is proposing that sexual attraction _is_ a choice? (Are _you_ proposing that?) I'm not clear if you think anyone is suggesting that or if you're suggesting it.JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 11:53 am @Terrapin Station
I am getting wound up by this thread because many posts speak about choice as if it mere random moves in a maze. In a way life has aspects of experimentation which can feel like random searching, especially in adolescence. But, what seems missing is the way in which issues of sexuality and preferences can be an emotional struggle of identity. In particular, some people from religious backgrounds struggle so much with sexual orientation, especially in some cultures. I have come across people who are rejected by family for their sexual orientation. I am also aware of this happening not just in Christian cultures, but many others too. I am not sure if anyone on this forum seems to understand that it is not a clear black and white as if deciding to go on a holiday or not. I have known a number of people who have become extremely unwell mentally in this searching.
It is a question which is about free will, in the extent of whether we choose anything, preferences and about actions. It is about the extent to which people may be lead subconsciously or consciously in making choices, and how much is compelled by the forces which come into play which may span the interplay of genetics and so many factors.
What really bothers me is that on forums, and not just this one, is sometimes LBGTQIA issues are seen like a playground on which members have fun and games and project so much onto 'others'. Also, by this thread question linking psychological causation and 'God' it blurs in a way which Hume describes as the is/ought fallacy. That is because analysis of natures and what is seen as acceptable in 'God's' point of view. I realise that my posts were ignored and I am left wondering am I the only person who is irritated by this thread, and if so, perhaps it is time for me to come away from the site, at least until this thread fades. But, it will be interesting to see what the person who started the thread will think, and how he will reply to the answers. I am not simply wishing for my post to be given attention, but with a view that the thread if seen online may be balanced and helpful rather than distressing for anyone who is struggling with the issues related to the topic.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
The reason why I am wound up is because I think that the question of choice, homosexuality and 'God' together is a muddle as it is many questions in one. Okay, I have blended the question of science, religion and politics but it is a broad discussion not focused on one specific group of people.
My annoyance is that the question allows for so much to be projected on people who identify as gay, bisexual or genderqueer, by the blending of the question whether we choose anything with homosexuality. But, maybe I should stop reading this thread or create a different one on sexuality from a different slant, but I just don't wish to do it too soon. I am not trying to oppose the thread but think that it blends ideas in a fuzzy way, rather than the thread introduction spelling out areas in a way which further clarity of thought. If it is about understanding the issues of why people are gay, I definitely think it is misplaced in the section on philosophy of religion. But, I am not sure that anyone on the forum will even see what I mean.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
Except that's not how the word is normally used. First of all, "I choose to believe..." is a common, almost trite, sentence. Second, lots of things that are described as "choices" are influenced by a variety of reasons. A common sentence would be, "I chose to take a left to Prospect Park because I wanted to get there more quickly, and it was the shortest of the two options." Perhaps you can't control your desire to get to the park quickly or your knowledge of which route is shorter. But does that invalidate the use of the word "choice"? How is choosing which road to take because there are reasons for your choice different from choosing which belief to accept because there are reasons for that choice?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 11:29 am
It's only a choice if, at the time of the decision, it would be possible to make what's essentially a whim selection of an option you don't have good/compelling reasons for. You're not usually going to make that choice, but it needs to be possible to make it or there was no choice, despite appearances otherwise.
Well, belief never works that way for me. It's never possible for me to make a whim choice about what to believe (so that I from that point on believe it).
If you want to claim that the word "choice" is valid only when there are no reasons for the choice and it is a coin flip, you are using the word in an idiosyncratic manner. If you want to claim that the reasons you believe something are somehow different from the reasons you chose the shorter path, then I disagree.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
I think it is.
And I don't think that anyone is LITERALLY saying that they chose among competing beliefs, where given the exact same circumstances, they could have chosen among multiple, incompatible beliefs and believed whatever their choice was.First of all, "I choose to believe..." is a common, almost trite, sentence.
Right. Which is perfectly consistent with what I said above.Second, lots of things that are described as "choices" are influenced by a variety of reasons.
Again, this is completely consistent with what I said above. It's not that it was impossible for them to make an alternate choice in the same exact circumstances.A common sentence would be, "I chose to take a left to Prospect Park because I wanted to get there more quickly, and it was the shortest of the two options."
Not unless it's NOT POSSIBLE for them to make another choice.Perhaps you can't control your desire to get to the park quickly or your knowledge of which route is shorter. But does that invalidate the use of the word "choice"?
I don't know if you're simply not understanding when I say that it's simply NOT POSSIBLE for me to make another choice re belief and then believe it.How is choosing which road to take because there are reasons for your choice different from choosing which belief to accept because there are reasons for that choice?
If that's possible for you, what would be an example?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
If you are annoyed because the question is confused then you can always unpack it, and say exactly why.JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 20th, 2022, 12:23 pm @Terrapin Station
The reason why I am wound up is because I think that the question of choice, homosexuality and 'God' together is a muddle as it is many questions in one. Okay, I have blended the question of science, religion and politics but it is a broad discussion not focused on one specific group of people.
My annoyance is that the question allows for so much to be projected on people who identify as gay, bisexual or genderqueer, by the blending of the question whether we choose anything with homosexuality. But, maybe I should stop reading this thread or create a different one on sexuality from a different slant, but I just don't wish to do it too soon. I am not trying to oppose the thread but think that it blends ideas in a fuzzy way, rather than the thread introduction spelling out areas in a way which further clarity of thought. If it is about understanding the issues of why people are gay, I definitely think it is misplaced in the section on philosophy of religion. But, I am not sure that anyone on the forum will even see what I mean.
Separate these into different questions.
Three potential factors:
Nurtue
Nature
God.
There is also the effect of environment.
Let's make it four.
1. Can nurtue "create" homsexuality?
2. Is homosexulity natural?
3. Does God create homsexuality?
4. In what way might the environment create homosexuality.
Now what has choice got to do with it?
Answer the question from your own experience. When you were becoming aware of sexuality, do you think you simply looked at the modern smorgasbord of the sexual spectrum and say to yourself - I'll have that one?
I'd guess that becoming what you are sexually was nothing like simply picking meat of a board.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8232
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?
Greatest I am wrote: ↑January 18th, 2022, 5:58 pm If God, as believers think, then why is God creating gays?
This smacks of the rather unpleasant Christian myth that sexual orientation is a 'lifestyle choice', although you don't say this outright. You do refer to homosexuality - and link it with crimes like murder, rape and child abuse - as a "choice", and not an in-built and natural variation in humanity as a whole. The prevalence of homosexual behaviour among many of 'God's creatures' (as well as humans) gives the lie to this, I think.
Such unpleasantness has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with bigotry on the part of humans, IMO.
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023