This thread was inspired by @PrinceGanaku. He made a legal argument pushing back against the legalization of homophobia, which some like @konkrumah have happily advocated.

I come from an academic background in social and political philosophy. I wanna make a moral argument 1/x.

Homosexuality is better defined as sexual attraction in homogeneity. The claims made against this phenomenon have been drawn anywhere from biological science to majoritarianism in democracy. I would like to pick and tackle three of these: science, religion and majoritarianism
The search for what makes one gay, sensationally-named the Gay Gene, has dominated the scientific discourse on the matter. Science is reductionist materialism

The attraction btwn man and woman is thought to have been reduced to a material cause in our being so what about gays?
But have we really reduced heterosexual attraction to its material cause in our biology? The best answer is no.

I would encourage anyone to seek this: "what is the cause of heterosexual attraction" and I would confidently tell you that the science is inconclusive

We don't know
We have no idea WHY usually, those we call male are attracted in sexual biological and neurological terms to those we call female.

We know HOW it happens. That is to say we can explain observable phenomena like hormones and receptors moving but we don't know WHY men like women.
In Philosophy of Mind, where the participation of psychological and neurological scientists is encouraged, we are very careful as to how we communicate scientific findings that speak to our inner-being.

We know why we procreate, for eg. But we can't confuse that with attraction
Please observe that I have refrained from using the word 'love'. I speak of the observable phenomenon known as sexuality. And I have said, with confidence that the science is inconclusive on why we are attracted to those we are attracted to even in heterosexuality.
We know about sexual release but don't confuse with attraction. We may know why Grace is attracted to tall men or rich men but we don't know why she likes men

Heterosexual attraction cannot be answered with the sciences of procreation and sexual release. They are inadequate
Now, to the problem of Religion which I find the most unfortunate tool of opposition to homosexual humanity. The argument from religion is moral and cultural.

There are different religious oppositions but usually they operate under the notion of Divine Command

"Our God says..."
I would like to leave the obvious problem of men speaking for their gods and look at why it is dangerous to entertain spiritual claims in the matter of defining our physical humanity.

Religious conservatives believe we cannot have morality if we have no idea of a god. False.
It's also illogical.

Morality is acquired in socialization before the young have a concept of a being out of this world.

That is to say if they are never introduced to this God-concept, it's sensible to argue that it WILL NOT NECESSARILY AFFECT THEIR MORAL PERFORMANCE.
Human-to-human contact is our primary and most important relationship

Thus, if the argument is that our humanity and morality begin from beyond us, we are neglecting the importance of human-to-human relationships

Saying that "that's not how God created us" is fairly problematic
"If anyone says they love the God they've never seen but hate the man they've seen, do not believe them".

How do you know that's not how God created us? How are you more willing to hold on to an out-of-this world claim than respect the reality of another human in this world?
I don't wanna speak of scriptures that we obviously don't follow to the letter. If we followed the scriptures to the letter, we won't allow menstruating women cook our food. There's so much ridiculousness in everyone's scriptures.

My point about morality has been made.
We underestimate our rational capacity when we cling onto "God says".

We lie when we say we can't think of humans doing good without a knowledge of a god.

We know humans before we know a concept out of this world. Respect your primary contact before you move to the man upstairs
Thirdly, the argument from majoritarian tastes. This is even more personal to me because it was the subject of my undergraduate long essay

What do we mean when we say the majority must have their way in democracy? It means that there's an intrinsic value to pleasing the majority
A referendum on homosexual humanity will be lost by those of us who support it. The reason is simple: the well has been poisoned for so long you don't expect many of the town's people to avoid the disease.

In that case, authority in a democracy is expected to make a moral choice
Would you let the minority have their say? @konkrumah says he would vote to criminalize pro-LGBT-humanity education and advocacy

Having dealt with the first two opposition arguments, I believe @PrinceGanaku's legal arguments answer the moral question in the majoritarian problem
There's no scientific basis to say homosexuality is inhuman. Homosexuality is statistically plausible in considerable population sizes as @Sai_Pher once tweeted

To destroy the humanity of those who cause you no harm, don't rope in a god or morality. You just seek to do harm.
And then lastly, we have the moral choice in a democracy to allow a minority live in comfort. It's a choice that would be made by representative government.

End of.

More from World

"MLs" do support the proletariat of Xinjiang & have the whole time. People like @Tursunali_7 & @GulnarNorthwest (and many others) who show the world the real Xinjiang via their everyday videos.

Shopkeepers like in this video below say

"Pompeo, we Xinjiang people hate you."


Or everyday working people like Zaynura Namatqari, who speak out against vicious & disgusting US lies and accusations about


.@qiaocollective have a brilliant thread of everyday proletarian Uyghurs speaking out against the harassment they face from the US and their paid


'Uyghur proletariat' looks like this:


Not like this: (photo from a pro Islamist separatist protest in Turkey in 2017)

You May Also Like

Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.