John Derbyshire has some thoughts about the latest attempt to defy human nature and biological determinism:
…remember that the human sciences differ from the physical sciences in an important way. We have been acquainted with galaxies, quarks, genes, superconductors, neurons, and tectonic plates for only a few decades. We have been observing each other — our fellow human beings — with very keen interest for several dozen millennia, since homo sap first showed up and formed social groups. We should therefore expect far fewer surprises in the human sciences than in the physical sciences. The reasonable expectation is, that the human sciences mostly just validate and quantify what we always kinda knew. Striking, dazzlingly counter-inutitive results show up a lot in the physical sciences. In the human sciences they ought to be rare. When such results are announced, they should be approached with even more than the scientifically-normal amount of skepticism.
Both social conservatives and the left have a huge ideological investment in the tabula rasa theory of humans. Social conservatives because it is necessary for them to believe that homosexuals are made, not born, and leftists because they always seek to remold man in the image of their utopia, to fit him in their procrustean bed of equality and “fairness.”
Both the liberal-left and religious right are really about social engineering. Effective social engineering requires the tabula rasa theory such that human beings can be molded in whatever manner the social engineers desire.
We must give up the delusion of social engineering in order to have a free society.
Social conservatives because it is necessary for them to believe that homosexuals are made, not born
Nope.
the religious right [is] really about social engineering.
Nope.
Would you care to elaborate? “Nope” is not a very compelling, or even meaningful argument.
Are you saying that social conservatives do believe that homosexuals are born that way? Are you saying that trying to “convert” a homosexual to heterosexuality isn’t social engineering? What?
Speaking as a social conservative, it is a matter of indifference to me whether homosexuals are born or “made”. Homosexual actions are sins that tempt some people and not others. There are also heterosexual sins that tempt some people and not others, and non-sexual sins like gambling and alcoholism and bank robbing that tempt some people and not others. If there’s an enzyme that subjects someone to a certain temptation, that would be good to know; we could find a cure, perhaps. Meanwhile, whether you feel tempted or not, you shouldn’t do bad things.
Any world-view that seeks to regulate non-coercive acts of competent adults is a form of social engineering, plain and simple. All non-libertarian ideologies are social engineering schemes.
But, speaking as a member of the religious right and as a social conservative, I am not interested in regulating (for example) homosexual acts. I believe such acts to be sins, but that doesn’t mean I feel a need to regulate them, any more than I would regulate, say, heterosexual fornication. Nor would I approve of anyone trying to force a “cure” or “preventative” treatment, if such a thing exists, upon anyone who didn’t want it. We in the religious right are used to having others who know little or nothing about what we believe attribute viewpoints to us that we don’t recognize. This is one of them.
We in the religious right are used to having others who know little or nothing about what we believe attribute viewpoints to us that we don’t recognize. This is one of them.
I don’t think that you can speak for everyone on the religious right or for all social conservatives. There are many posters over at Free Republic who would disagree with you. They believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and that it’s a mental illness to be cured.
Mark, like Rand I’ve met plenty of social conservatives that has espoused the opinions you deny. They think homosexuality is a choice that can be made and un-made (or “cured”). And they do feel a need to regulate homosexual activities. Most unfairly, they deny to homosexuals the rights and privileges that heterosexual enjoys.
The “most enlightened” version of social conservatism is “You can be gay, as long as you’re comfortable never having a family that’s recognized by law.” Nice. Real generous, that.
Rand:
Yes, there are social conservatives who think that homosexuals are made, not born. how does that translate to ALL social conservatives believe that?
Brock:
When you PROVE that same sex marriages are just as valuable to society as normal marriages, THEN, and ONLY then, can you make a legitimate case for same sex marriage. Until then, it’s just whining by people who want benefits they haven’t earned.
CA voted for Prop 8. EVERY state where it’s been put before the voters, opposition to same sex marriage has won. If you think that’s all being done by “social conservatives”, then I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means.
By any rational measure of the issue, the “extremists” are the people who agree with you.
Looks like Greg Q is having logic issues. 😉
First, Rand isn’t saying “ALL social conservatives, etc.” He (if I’m reading him correctly) merely states that’s the expected value given the possible range of opinions.
Second, no; it is not necessary to PROVE (what is it with some folks and all caps anyway?) the claim you stated. It is merely necessary to establish the point that gay adults have the same rights as any other law-abiding citizen to engage in a legal contract between two parties. Note that this has nothing to do with religious ceremonies. For example, the Catholic confirmation and the Jewish Bar Mitzvah are not legally binding certifications of adulthood, despite their tradition of marking a change to personal responsibility.
Yes, Proposition 8 did pass in California, as have many across the nation the past few years. What Greg ignores is that many of those amendments were arguably reactions to perceived judicial over-reach. That’s not to mention the several studies which show that support for gay marriage tends to be higher among younger citizens. That is, successive generations have become more tolerant of gay marriage.
And -despite Mark’s dismissal- it is self-evident that many on the religious right believe it is possible to “cure” gays. If memory serves, even Sarah Palin’s old church holds to that view.
The first post was in English, not Russell’s logical calculus, and clearly tars all social conservatives with one brush. The Freepers are not representative of all social conservatives; many of us are more NRO types. Tell you what, how about you visit your local Catholic church Sunday and see if the people there want homosexual sex made illegal.
I don’t dismiss the possibility of curing homosexuals. The only thing that would make this impossible would be if homosexuality is purely chosen behavior, which, though possible, is not established. If there is a genetic orientation, a cure might involve some kind of gene or chemical therapy, and might not be available for some while yet, though.