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.
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.”
That seems like an argument against it.
sigh
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.
“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?
“Homosexuality is a sexual preference, and individual’s are not born with preferences…”
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.