Southern wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge
That is pedophilia, not homosexuality. Hoppe wasn't arguing against pedophilia but against homosexuality and it's "advocacy". Again: homosexuality is not something people advocate or choose, it is something that people biologically are.
Snowflake,
I'm not sure what you mean. Suggesting that homosexuality is a chosen, anti-family perversion, which is what Hoppe does, doesn't require any misrepresentation by liberals.
Muffinburg wrote: Snowflake: "I don't know. Does it matter?" That's the whole point of this thread and the article I posted.
Snowflake: "I don't know. Does it matter?"
That's the whole point of this thread and the article I posted.
If some libertarians are racist or homophobic or whatever doesn't matter UNTIL the point where they start advocating that those people be removed from society.
Where was Hoppe arguing against homosexuality? I remember him using it as an example of a lifestyle that is incompatible with maintaining a "libertarian order" in a "covenant founded on protecting family and kin."
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
That seems like an argument against it.
**sigh**
Nielsio:This is implying that homosexuality is something that can be advocated, i.e. that it is a choice.
Homosexuality is a sexual preference, and individual's are not born with preferences. It is something they develop, over-time, through social interaction. I like Eastern European women; I was not born this way.
Furthermore, It is not genetic and it cannot be passed down from generation to generation. If that were true, then as society became more tolerant, homosexuality would at first rise and then it would decline, until it no longer existed. That is, homosexuals would get together and form relationships (upward trend), but since they are unable to reproduce, the "gay gene" would cease to exist (would never get passed down). of course, there are scientific ways for homosexuals to have children and reproduce, but the general trend, again in a completely tolerant society, would be downwards.
The fact that some animals, on occasion, engage in homosexuality does not prove that it is genetic. My dog humps my leg, but that doesn't mean that he inherited that gene from his great-great grandfather.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
"Homosexuality is a sexual preference, and individual's are not born with preferences..."
So you're attraction to the opposite sex is also an acquired developed preference?
Can you acquire the preference for having a sex with cats and dogs?
You really should read this book and get a different perspective.
http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518
I think he's saying by definition homsexuality is a biological attraction for the same sex. Under this definition, someone who became conditioned to be attracted to the same sex would not be a homosexual.
We don't know what definition Hoppe is using.
So you're attraction to the opposite sex is also an acquired developed preference? Can you acquire the preference for having a sex with cats and dogs?
Yes, in fact it is, and some people do engage in beastiality. There is no evidence, that I know of, which proves that there is a gay gene. It's counter-evolutionary, and the type of people you like to have sex with is just a personal choice that is conditioned (see Parson's sex-role theory). If you have serious evidence that suggests otherwise, then by all means....
Esuric,
Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous evolutionary biologist, has some evolutionary theories regarding homosexuality he'd like to share with you.
"Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?"
Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
Ensuric,
You're not attracted to the opposite sex because you've been raised that way, among many other traits. No offense, but if I can make the analogy to economics, your opinion on this issue is like the guy who believes in usury or money= wealth fallacies.
If you want evidence then that book has plenty of evidence.
"Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?" Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
It's the same old "animals engage in homosexuality too!" argument, but this does not prove the existence of a gay gene. My dog likes to eat chocolate (though it can kill him), but it's not a genetic predisposition. Also, he says,
"A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common."
This is essentially what I said in my previous comment. If it is genetic, then social tolerance towards homosexuality must inevitably wipe it off the face of the earth (making it an evolutionary disadvantage).
Ensuric, You're not attracted to the opposite sex because you've been raised that way, among many other traits. No offense, but if I can make the analogy to economics, your opinion on this issue is like the guy who believes in usury or money= wealth fallacies. If you want evidence then that book has plenty of evidence.
A lot of social research says otherwise. Many sociologists claim that gender (as opposed to sex) is socially constructed. You're taught to act like a "man" or a "woman" early on through positive and negative social reinforcement. Also, I'm not going to read that entire book.
Esuric wrote: This is essentially what I said in my previous comment. If it is genetic, then social tolerance towards homosexuality must inevitably wipe it off the face of the earth (making it an evolutionary disadvantage).
No, not necessarily. But if so, so what? This doesn't disprove it being evolutionary because we've obviously not had a tolerant society (this thread being ample evidence).
No, it doesn't prove anything, but it merely suggests that it's counter evolutionary. I cannot simply assume that homosexuality is genetic (rather than a preference) without some sort of solid evidence. It sort of resembles the AGW phenomenon; you cannot question its validity, and if you do, you're an ignorant bigot who denies (nonexistent) scientific evidence. But yeah, I don't agree with Hoppe.
I'm not assuming it is evolutionary. You said there was no viable evolutionary mechanism for it, which is flat out wrong.
I very much dislike how modern science calls everything a fact, regardless of how inconclusive it's findings are. Everything is a fact now, even if its not. Many, even on this forum sadly or anywhere, have succummed to that lazy method of reasoning and are unwilling to go down the road of superior scrutinity to further validate their claim.
Ofcoarse I am not referring to any one here specifically, just saying it's a problem in general all around us. :)
DD5:You really should read this book and get a different perspective.
Actually, this book sounds awesome. Thanks.
Esuric wrote: I cannot simply assume that homosexuality is genetic (rather than a preference) without some sort of solid evidence.
I cannot simply assume that homosexuality is genetic (rather than a preference) without some sort of solid evidence.
You have this backwards btw. Those who claim that homosexual attraction is a choice/lifestyle and say anything about removing those from society for being 'non-family' (whatever that means), have all the burden of proof on them.
To be quite frank: Who cares? What impact does Hoppe's views on homosexuality/bisexuality/tap dancing midgets/sadomasochistic Esperanto language camps operated by black men dressed as avocados have on anything?
(Classical) liberalism and/or libertarianism is not, has not, and will never conform to the standards of political correctness, be they Kinseyian or Keynesian. And the benefits of attracting homosexual people to our cause are miniscule compared to the alliances that can be made with secessionists. I don't think it's a coincidence many American homeschoolers are religious, nor that the senior faculty of this Institute is largely Catholic. Even Rothbard and Block, both avid atheists, were in favour of religion as a stopping power against secular monarchs and tyrants. There are far more people interested in seceding over, say, abortion than over things like whether homosexuals can get government-approved marriage documents.
I'm not saying we should go out of our way to piss off the gay lobby, but I don't think we'll get much traction out of an alliance with them. If anything, it would only contribute to the "All liberals care about is drugs" stereotype, except with homosexuality tacked on.
Praetyre,
This is about property rights and consistency. I can't believe you're making this strategic stuff up to defend aggression.
Remember: I didn't bring this stuff up. If it were lost to the times and forgotten that would be fine by me. But Daniel brought it up here, and Stephan brought it up on Libertarian Standard. And if you're going to revisit this topic you'd better be sure you're doing it right and not simply defending a decades old bad view.
I think by homosexuality hoppe just means people with the same junk that are attracted to one another.
Ensuric: Actually, this book sounds awesome. Thanks.
Here's a pretty good interview with the author also:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3554279466299738997#
Southern wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge That is pedophilia, not homosexuality. Hoppe wasn't arguing against pedophilia but against homosexuality and it's "advocacy". Again: homosexuality is not something people advocate or choose, it is something that people biologically are.
By todays standards yes, however in ancient greece it was not. Boy of 15 o16 was seen as a man. It is totally relevent to what we are discussing. Were these practices widespread because of some predisposition or because of a differing culture concerning sex.
It is also relevent that many of these relationships continued into adulthood. It was common for soldiers of the time to engage in homosexual relationships while on campaign. This would be totally unthinkable in our society.
It seems that the permissive sexual culture of ancient greece allowed for the widespread practice of homosexuality, bisexuality, and peophillia (your description, not mine) (I am also not equating these acts with one another).
Also to be clear I am not trying to show that all homosexuality is a choice. Only that historicly there is evidence that culture can affect the sexual preferences of the people in society.
Nielso: "... And if you're going to revisit this topic you'd better be sure you're doing it right "
Do it right?
"... and not simply defending a decades old bad view"
Because the newer the better?
You're being definitional. Clearly what I meant with sacred was un-touchable. People who believe that version could not separate it politically. In other words, if you're a libertarian, then you cannot hold the fish and the trees as un-touchable.
You're being definitional. Clearly what I meant with sacred was un-touchable. People who believe that version could not separate it politically.
In other words, if you're a libertarian, then you cannot hold the fish and the trees as un-touchable.
Un-touchable for yourself or everyone? Can you not hold something sacred and respect other people's political views? It might be rare, but I can believe there is someone who's a libertarian based on the N.A.P. and having a free-market stance, yet not partaking in activities that the person see's as violating what's sacred.
Is there an atheist here who thinks homosexuality is a choice?
Do you think there's a correlation between atheism and bad science?
Ayn Rand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_and_homosexuality#Moral_views
I find it ironic how the Kinseyian crowd calls everyone who disagrees with them intolerant and bigoted (which brings to mind this) and yet treat any questioning of their "Homosexuality is set in stone" dogma like AGWers treat questioners of the Gospel of Gore.
How is this relevant to what anyone here has said? Religion has nothing to do with this.
This is implying that homosexuality is something that can be advocated, i.e. that it is a choice.
I'm a heterosexual who is attracted to thin and beautiful women. this is not a choice...yet I can advocate the value of my desires to others who prefer 'thick' (read: fat) women, men, etc.
Also, how is 'nature-environment worship' incompatible with a family society?
ever hear about the 'carbon footprint of a person' applied to population control? I have.
The gays can then just arm themselves and shoot the bigots in their faces.
*sigh*
shooting people for rolling their eyes at musical theatre? civilzation at its finest.
Esuric, Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous evolutionary biologist, has some evolutionary theories regarding homosexuality he'd like to share with you.
this is a sad, sad day for the LvMI forums.
what aggression are you talking about?
the preference is not. the action is...
just as heterosexuality is not a choice but the act of engaging in sex is (relevant to the celibate, those 'waiting for marriage', those in monogomous relationships who turn down the honry babysitter, etc.).