I don't claim to know the cause of homosexuality. I know there are many different thoughts on the cause of this and some are combinations of them, such as genetics and environment. What I want to muse on, briefly, is the idea of sexuality being genetically determined.
Some people may not like to hear this but I don't think it would be much of a controversy to say that the purpose of our sexual organs is for reproduction. Sure we can find secondary purposes for them, mostly as pleasure devices, but also as a kind of original fidget spinner for the restless. My point being that none of the secondary purposes you could imagine would likely have come to be without the primary purpose of reproduction.
If you are genetically predisposed to homosexuality it should be safe to assume that heterosexuals are genetically predisposed toward heterosexuality. If you can be born coded for homosexuality even though your reproductive system is designed for heterosexuality you must accept the possibility that homosexuality is a genetic mistake. I can see where some people would find this offensive, after all it is the admission that there is something wrong with homosexuals but we should be honest with ourselves and be able to admit that being born with genetic disorders is not something we should celebrate. If a cleft palate is a genetic disorder we would want to correct it and that should follow for homosexuality if it is genetically caused.
I'm not seeking to demean anybody here but it seems like the genetic cause argument for homosexuality is far more demeaning than an argument from choice or preference.
Friday, October 27, 2017
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Governance Government and the NAP
Governance is the code a man chooses to live by.
Government is the code a man chooses for others to live by.
A man chooses for himself a code for which he lives by. By so doing, a man demonstrates his right of self-governance. Not by decree but as a natural consequent of his freewill and inherent intentionality. When a man chooses for another the code he must live by he has not only stripped agency from another, he has also, by contradiction, denied this agency of himself. A man may choose, for himself, to live by the code of another but this is neither absolute nor inviolable.
As a man may wish to be part of a society, he, along with many other individuals, may feel compelled to bring his behaviors into line with those of the predominate culture of a given society. Even though those behaviors may be antithetical to those he may value as an island unto himself, he demonstrates his preferred values by joining the society and, further, by performing the behaviors deemed acceptable within his preferred society.
A man is not governed by society, he is governed by his own choices and preferences -- self-governed. If he places a high value on the demands of his church, his family, or his greater community, he will demonstrate this through his actions. His church may excommunicate him, his family disown him, or his greater community shun him, but they cannot force him to act in accord to values he doesn't have, that is what government is for.
The non-aggression principle (NAP) is basically the idea that a person may do whatever they wish, provided, they do not initiate violence against the person or rightfully owned property of another without being so permitted. While the NAP is taken as axiomatic, it is my contention that, it is derived from man's right of self-governance. I believe this is important to understand when attempting to derive implications for rights and punishments under the NAP.
Should a man become violent toward his neighbor, then a man has, in himself, no right to deny violence in return. The neighbor is under no obligation to return violence or seek alternate compensation if it be his will. Should the neighbor seek an alternate compensation for the violence a suitable compensation can be negotiated between them. The compensation must be equitable to each party but the neighbor is due no less than the violence and damages done unto him.
A man is not the government of his property. He may set rules for usage and he may deny access but he may not violate the self governance of another beyond what is necessary to remove such an individual if they will not leave of their own accord. A trespasser may be killed if a violent encounter ensues but that is as a consequence of the violent encounter not the trespass. If, and only if, a prior agreement is made can a property owner exact what would otherwise be violations of the NAP.
What you deny a man you deny of yourself. If you deny a man his right to his apple you have not denied of yourself your right to thine eye.
Government is the code a man chooses for others to live by.
A man chooses for himself a code for which he lives by. By so doing, a man demonstrates his right of self-governance. Not by decree but as a natural consequent of his freewill and inherent intentionality. When a man chooses for another the code he must live by he has not only stripped agency from another, he has also, by contradiction, denied this agency of himself. A man may choose, for himself, to live by the code of another but this is neither absolute nor inviolable.
As a man may wish to be part of a society, he, along with many other individuals, may feel compelled to bring his behaviors into line with those of the predominate culture of a given society. Even though those behaviors may be antithetical to those he may value as an island unto himself, he demonstrates his preferred values by joining the society and, further, by performing the behaviors deemed acceptable within his preferred society.
A man is not governed by society, he is governed by his own choices and preferences -- self-governed. If he places a high value on the demands of his church, his family, or his greater community, he will demonstrate this through his actions. His church may excommunicate him, his family disown him, or his greater community shun him, but they cannot force him to act in accord to values he doesn't have, that is what government is for.
The non-aggression principle (NAP) is basically the idea that a person may do whatever they wish, provided, they do not initiate violence against the person or rightfully owned property of another without being so permitted. While the NAP is taken as axiomatic, it is my contention that, it is derived from man's right of self-governance. I believe this is important to understand when attempting to derive implications for rights and punishments under the NAP.
Should a man become violent toward his neighbor, then a man has, in himself, no right to deny violence in return. The neighbor is under no obligation to return violence or seek alternate compensation if it be his will. Should the neighbor seek an alternate compensation for the violence a suitable compensation can be negotiated between them. The compensation must be equitable to each party but the neighbor is due no less than the violence and damages done unto him.
A man is not the government of his property. He may set rules for usage and he may deny access but he may not violate the self governance of another beyond what is necessary to remove such an individual if they will not leave of their own accord. A trespasser may be killed if a violent encounter ensues but that is as a consequence of the violent encounter not the trespass. If, and only if, a prior agreement is made can a property owner exact what would otherwise be violations of the NAP.
What you deny a man you deny of yourself. If you deny a man his right to his apple you have not denied of yourself your right to thine eye.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)