Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok then, simple question, how could this not-yet-discovered biological explanation for homosexuality inform my moral stance?

There are many ways it could inform your moral stance , it depends upon your original position. If you take a position that says " homosexuality is described as a sin in the Bible and that's that , the Bible cannot be wrong" then there's no way anything will change you.

Even so , we could still make decisions about whether homosexuality was a willful "sin" ( ie one of behaviour choices) or whether it was just an expected "sin". If sexuality is fixed at birth then all that one could ever do is restrain oneself from that sexuality , but we couldn't be expected to change who we were. If it's a developmental/behavioural thing then we could be expected to make possibly radical changes to our sexuality (like a person who learns not to take drugs).

A lot depends about what you think the "sin" of homosexuality actually is. Is it the sexual act? Is it the sexual thoughts? The lifestyle? My guess is that the Bible refers to sexual acts (possibly anal sex) and it's these acts that are "abominable". This begs the question how do we respond morally to homosexuals who have no intention of engaging in such activities? Is it Ok for them to kiss for example?

If homosexual thoughts are considered "sinful" then how do we respond morally if sexuality is hardwired. It's impossible to ask someone to not think homosexual thoughts if they are hardwired for it. Therefore the moral demand would be unreasonable and impractical. This would surely inform our stance.

We also have to consider whether homosexuality could be seen as a disability of some kind (controversial I know) and if that happened how do we then label a physical dysfunction a "sin". Since homosexuals are denied positions simply because they declare their sexuality (even if they are not practising) this could be weighed against the moral duty of the church and individual not to discriminate. Ever heard of the human rights act?

There's loads more I could say. What is (defined by the church) homosexuality? How do we define what is sinful about it? We all agree that theft is sinful , but in the context or bungled investments it might not be so clear. Many on the stockmarket are "thieves" in my opinion but do they get recognised as such?

The prevailing stance by the church seems to be that homosexuality can changed with a little prayer and therapy because it's a behaviour that one can "grow out" of. Science could threaten this thinking.

You see the analogy with paedophilia doesn't work because biology can never validate paedophilia Why? - because there's the extra dimension of hurt caused to innocent children. Potentially , homosexuality does not have these problems. It's perfectly possible for a homosexual to practice their sexuality in a discreet , loving , non-harmful way. This door is not open to paedophilia. It is open for homsexuality. The question is this - what is it that INvalidates homosexuality? As yet I am still waiting to find out from someone why it's such a terrible abomination.

Originally posted by knightmeister
There are many ways it could inform your moral stance , it depends upon your original position. If you take a position that says " homosexuality is described as a sin in the Bible and that's that , the Bible cannot be wrong" then there's no way anything will change you.

Even so , we could still make decisions about whether homosexuality was a willf ...[text shortened]... ing to find out from someone why it's such a terrible abomination.

Ok, so it does not really inform our moral stance at all. It just means that some homosexuals may not be fully morally accountable for their actions.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok, so it does not really inform our moral stance at all. It just means that some homosexuals may not be fully morally accountable for their actions.

Say what? Isn't what you just said a contradiction? If someone is not fully morally accountable then how are they then judged by God as wilfully "sinning" ? It makes a difference to how you view their behaviour.

In any case you have not yet told me what the "sin" of homosexuality actually is - could you be more specific? Homosexuality is a very broad term. What exactly is it that is morally a problem? You answer could vary from wearing pink jumpers to right through to anal sex if you like. Just give me some idea of what the "sin" actually is in your eyes.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Say what? Isn't what you just said a contradiction? If someone is not fully morally accountable then how are they then judged by God as wilfully "sinning" ? It makes a difference to how you view their behaviour.

In any case you have not yet told me what the "sin" of homosexuality actually is - could you be more specific? Homosexuality is a very br ...[text shortened]... anal sex if you like. Just give me some idea of what the "sin" actually is in your eyes.

b]Say what? Isn't what you just said a contradiction? If someone is not fully morally accountable then how are they then judged by God as wilfully "sinning" ? It makes a difference to how you view their behaviour.

Not at all. A murderer may not be held morally accountable for his actions; murder is still a 'sin'.

In any case you have not yet told me what the "sin" of homosexuality actually is - could you be more specific? Homosexuality is a very broad term. What exactly is it that is morally a problem? You answer could vary from wearing pink jumpers to right through to anal sex if you like. Just give me some idea of what the "sin" actually is in your eyes.

As I have explained, repeatedly, I don't care. I don't want to argue about the morality of homosexuality. All I am arguing is that whether something is biological or 'hardwired into the brain' is not a moral defence. To claim "I was born that way" is not a justification, although it could mitigate moral culpability.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]b]Say what? Isn't what you just said a contradiction? If someone is not fully morally accountable then how are they then judged by God as wilfully "sinning" ? It makes a difference to how you view their behaviour.

Not at all. A murderer may not be held morally accountable for his actions; murder is still a 'sin'.

In any case you have not n that way" is not a justification, although it could mitigate moral culpability.

As I have explained, repeatedly, I don't care. I don't want to argue about the morality of homosexuality.

---conrau----------

But whether you "care" or not is irrelevant. What's the point of caring or not caring? The point is that until we agree to examine the specifics of what is supposed to be immoral about homosexuality then we have little chance of figuring out how our morality might be affected.

It would be like saying "I want you to tell me how the latest develoments in IT could affect a PC , but I don't care for discussing any details about hard drives or motherboards etc ".

I'm suspicious , I think you know that a discussion about what it is SPECIFICALLY that is supposed to be immoral about homosexuality is going to take you on to thin ice and you don't want to go there.

You don't want to argue about the morality of homsoexuality but you still want me to explain how biology might inform our moral stance? Duh?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]b]Say what? Isn't what you just said a contradiction? If someone is not fully morally accountable then how are they then judged by God as wilfully "sinning" ? It makes a difference to how you view their behaviour.

Not at all. A murderer may not be held morally accountable for his actions; murder is still a 'sin'.

In any case you have not ...[text shortened]... n that way" is not a justification, although it could mitigate moral culpability.

Not at all. A murderer may not be held morally accountable for his actions; murder is still a 'sin'. ------------------------------------------------------------------conrau------------------------

Duh? What would be the point in calling it a sin then? The whole point of sin is that we are held accountable to God. Homosexuals are not just called by the church to say that their sexuality is sinful but also they are asked to renounce it and they are often held morally accountable by the church.

So maybe in your mind homosexuality might be a "sin" that no individual is ever held accountable for potentially? I don't think that's the way it is viewed by the church. It's an abomination remember.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]b]Say what? Isn't what you just said a contradiction? If someone is not fully morally accountable then how are they then judged by God as wilfully "sinning" ? It makes a difference to how you view their behaviour.

Not at all. A murderer may not be held morally accountable for his actions; murder is still a 'sin'.

In any case you have not ...[text shortened]... n that way" is not a justification, although it could mitigate moral culpability.

To claim "I was born that way" is not a justification, although it could mitigate moral culpability.
---------------------conrau-----------------------------------

You have said it right there. A murderer cannot say that his act was "moral" or Ok just because he was born that way , a paedophile cannot either. There's whole list of immoral acts that are readily accepted as wrong by society.

From murder to rape through to theft , lying etc etc. They are considered acts for which we are morally culpable because they are in and of themselves morally wrong.No amount of saying I was born that way will make a lie the right thing to do. No amount of biological explanation can make stealing from someone "Ok" . Just because we know about Torrettes syndrome does not mean that swearing is not offensive and rude.

Now the question is , does homosexuality fit into these catagories ? Is it an act which society agrees is morally wrong? Is it an act whereby using biology as a justification should not be tolerated because it is in and of itself just plain wrong (like paedophilia).

The answer for me is no. It is being placed in the wrong catagory by you. Justification is possible because it is not universally agreed by society as "morally wrong no matter what the cause".

Until you can successfully place it in this catagory using some reasoning , you don't have a rationale to make analogies with murder or paedophilia.