Arroyo, Freedom, normality and morality (II)
Is homosexuality unnatural practice? Is it immoral? Does it make its acceptance a regression? Does tolerance to it carries a disguised undermining civilization of increased freedoms invididual? Although the heat of debate that took place following the self
Pio Moa and homophobic has been turned off (I could not write this post before) it is obvious that the initial questions generated pulse in the debate about homosexuality and especially as regards the recognition of certain civil rights of homosexuals as "gay marriage" and adoption by gay couples.
In the previous post I explained why I think the autoimputación of Moa and homophobic, not only clumsy, but by assuming a
tramposa dilogía unsustainable and dangerous also. He stated being against the homophobic "Maffia
roses", which is as incoherent as declared
"catalanófobo" for being against Catalan nationalism. Clearly, there is little evidence of such strong appreciation to Catalonia and the Catalans as a fight for the release from the yoke of nationalism. Cancer continue to deteriorate "supremacist" and interventionist lobbies of many gays (all statist cutting), soon will be the same: that the best token of appreciation to the gay community will fight for the release of the yoke of those lobbyists. Pío Moa
holds his statement by claiming that the end of the dominant focus groups generated a "word police" and therefore homophobic is used for all those who oppose gay goings of such groups as the Catalan nationalism (the analogy is mine and others, has not used Moa) accused of catalanófobos us who oppose his ideas.
This is highly inconsistent. No doubt that Pio Moa opposes exclusive nationalism, his historiographical work supports him as much as its numerous opinion articles. Yet
no owner has come up with an entry on his blog "I am catalanófobo, naturally." Moa The dialectic ruse to avoid having to backpedal, claiming that "assumes that should be named according to the word" police "whose use is that complaint is to surrender in a battle as important as language:
if you consider that those groups that oppose you may e tiquetarte as they want, then you really are not belligerent with them, you just put in profile and not dare to go ahead. Moa considers that goes ahead and is even more brave to let tag, to surrender and in what language to constrain, as though they would benefit and those lobbying for leading a more heroic struggle.
In my opinion, the title of your initial post just wanted to cause a stir (mission accomplished) and then had to resort to hair-splitting of puppeteer for not recognizing his clumsiness. I think his stubbornness and pride were imposed on their capacity for analysis. Even the best type check a blur.
However, debate over claims shells have been applauded by many of the commentators on the discussion. Namely:
- "Homosexuality is a defect (such as nearsightedness or limp), but I can not think to judge my gay friends from his misfortune" (not realizes that and it just did).
tara Is it a misfortune or a homosexual? can say that in an environment that discriminates against gay, obviously so, as years ago in an environment of a county drenched southern Mississippi, the black condition was a disgrace to the hostile environment they faced. But Moa does not relate to this, obviously, but
considers the homosexual victim of an event that decreases as a person or to reduce the possibilities of the normal performance of their duties (like the lame and shortsighted, as he says.)
It is certainly an unpopular statement. Nobody likes to be labeled as a moron or unhappy issue of their identity. But we go beyond the politically correct (as Moa and often tries to achieve, which is commendable). Is it comparable
sexual orientation the imperfection of any physiological organ or set of them? Obviously not .
Here, Moa in particular and the other contenders in general, disappoint me again.
it is obvious that homosexuality has a very influential psychological elements. Which very rarely have myopia and limp and not to mention a cleft lip or scoliosis. Moa may reduce a person to a set of biochemical reactions and a host of hormonal conjunctions. You might think that human beings are a mass of interconnections electrochemical and psychological causes are only the manifestation of that concoction of cerebral elements. Very poor vision would be that the human being, but if you think Don Pio, let him. It is understood then the person from a mere vision
biochemistry, where personality is just one manifestation of hormonal buzz from inside of us reacts to the environment.
Others think that people are loved BIO-PSYCHO-SOCIAL, and that these three areas affect percentages and means very different from each other and not always in the same way the same person.
To Moa, the 
homosexual dysfunction have some kind of encouraging him to be attracted to those of the same sex. But we need to clarify that the comparison with similar tara limp or illogical:
the homosexual has no imperfection in, for example, the functioning of their sexual organs (though reduce sexuality to the use of sexual organs and is an error.) And to have it, that does not conceptualized as homosexual, and there is no genital tara can not be equally held by heterosexuals. For men, it is speculated that the castrated at a young age are more effeminate. Obviously here there is a hormonal issue involved, if influenced at puberty (when our bodies acquire the so-called secondary sexual characteristics) can result in a body less masculine, androgynous, but not necessarily in a sexual tendency (which, in the case of castrated slaves, for example in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, was determined more by the environment, as the case of lesbianism harems).
We can not therefore say that a specific physiological dysfunction assume a greater tendency to homosexuality. Further complicated because the emphasis on homosexuality as a natural tara (example used by Moa). Some proponents (and in the words of the Moa, it would appear) argue that the fact that homosexuals, if true to their tendencies, can not have offspring. Again, take hold of a consistent reductionism that is dysfunctional human being who has no ability to reproduce. But in the case of homosexuals, no such biological inability (and having, as the infertile woman or man, for example, that has nothing to do with homosexual tendencies) from a physiological standpoint. And if Moa considers that there is from a psychological point of view, again is inconsistent, because here we recognize the influence of the psyche on the genitals. With the same criteria, which renounces his sexual urges a moral issue (eg, the vow of chastity) can be considered equally unable to have offspring. Moa Would you consider someone like a moron? Not likely, but to do so is against their own consistency.
He has responded to Moa can not be considered a disgrace what is not considered as such by who has the attribute in question: if you feel unhappy homosexual, homosexuality can not be considered his misfortune. It is an argument with some travel, but not too much, because objectively, a blind man suffers a handicap, but even though you can feel lucky (for example, Borges acknowledged that in some questions was indebted to his blindness.)
Looking at all the dialectics of Moa in the case, we conclude that
which leads him to consider the status of homosexual unfortunate, is not the considered unnatural. And that brings us to another step of the debate.
"Homosexuality is unnatural. Frankly, this statement is surprisingly common in many people who describe themselves as liberals. Just do not fail to explain how it is that if homosexuality is unnatural, it
occur in all societies, eras and civilizations and in the animal world, to recognize more easily the closer are these animals to humans on the evolutionary scale (mammals and particularly land and above, primates).
From the undeniable presence of homosexuality throughout history, that no anthropologist would deny, it follows that it is obviously natural. But those who think otherwise are hiding in a statistical design and percentage of "natural." As has been argued, for example, Luis H.
Arroyo ,
natural is what the majority, ie, identifies the natural and the most common. Any evolutionary biologist could explain the very limited nature of that journey the necessary recesses until the "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" (who say they have the ability to think while we justifiable doubts arise.) The itinerary of evolution natural up to us, has been extremely unlikely and rare. Could be considered almost unnatural, and because of the complicated have been necessary given the circumstances we're here, is why creationists believe infer the presence and need for an Intelligent Designer.
Another argument to banish the vision that identifies the natural and frequently is to ask those who defend it if they consider the marsupials as natural (despite their rarity compared to mammals or egg-laying). Is the diamond natural? Typically, the carbon tends to agglomerate rather in other forms, such as coal. Are natural black holes? Most stars that collapse does not degenerate into them, just a few. Are natural exotic plant species much rarer than the plants that we consider "common"? Natural Are Pygmies despite the infrequency of their physical characteristics?
natural Are people with blue eyes, which in many parts of the world are less common than homosexuals? If by "unnatural" consider the minority, this would be a much less natural world than we could bear. Not only that, everyone would be radically unnatural on many facets. Decree is rather unnatural advantages and disadvantages for individuals according to their sexual inclinations, I think.
The other issue addressed is
morality or immorality of sex. From here, I have to admit I am very surprised the view of some liberals in this regard. It is true that often broadcast without careful to distinguish between homosexuality exhibitionism and homosexuality itself. What is already denotes that have been won the battle for lobbyists
roses to identify the latter with all homosexuals.
The public display of homosexuality, it is often of poor aesthetic taste. But then so is the public display of heterosexuality. The parades and pageants of gay pride day gay community show hypersexualized, only focused on sexual activity and reduce their freedom to a number of stereotypes that go beyond a certain sexual liberation as if it were the only area for which an oppressed community can fight.
But the gang of heterosexual men bawl out loud what they would do this or that woman is usually a sight so pitiful as frequent, and this we usually see every day, notably on weekends throughout the year no need for "straight pride day" and in all areas and locations. No less ridiculous are usually hordes of Women held over a weekend bachelorette attire carrying as joke gadgets that simulate phalluses. What happens is that socially inelegant display of heterosexuality is assumed and much-spoiled by frequent-than homosexuality. Heterosexual men and women also make the mistake of reducing their personality to sexual activity and seek to show her everything they can, is everywhere. Who only consider in bad taste that same behavior by gays, it is certainly that has not been able to weigh the attacks that the aesthetic taste of the public permanently heterosexual perpetrators need not be organized in lobbies, precisely because his heterosexuality majority.
is a different question of the morality of gay sexuality is not displayed publicly. Most liberals agree with Moa have made clear (eg, Daniel Ballesteros) who do not consider this activity legally prosecuted regardless of the moral view that they deserve. It is obvious that no single
morality open societies as we pretend to be (in the tyrannized societies, morality is taken by power.) From what morality is clearly determined opine opinion. In this sense,
not really the Catholic Church who is able today to impose their views (including if so wished) but socialism prevailing
, and I agree fully with the expressions of deep disagreement that many liberals and parents have expressed to complain about the sex education program from the Government
as battering ram against parental authority and most widespread religion in our country. I consider two issues that are intertwined that many have failed to see: the influence of lobbyists
gays and the government's firm intention to always win their vote, with the global practice
a hedonistic culture . It is very difficult to separate the two, but the second is a movement much larger than the first easier to identify.
Hedonism is a trend prevailing minimum effort with maximum reward (an absolutely economical, you where to look.) It is also a few non-replacement of traditional values. Quite simply, many people today do not want to start a family because that is the
purchase a number of responsibilities that limit their freedom . That's not a English question, even only West (though much more intense in the West, especially through greater material prosperity) but also globally.
In this sense, that hedonism has its most intense and simplistic in hypersexualization society. Sex is really a cheap resource, which almost everyone can access and provides a very immediate satisfaction and considerable intensity. Economically it is a wildcard: it serves for almost anything. I will not elaborate on what evidence is often used sex to promote all kinds of products and services, including many who are initially not at all related to sexuality.
sexualization This process is much more complex than we can discuss this entry, but has many negative aspects, although partly arises from causes very positive (women's liberation movements, initial release of the gay community, a greater knowledge human sexuality and its influence on the formation of personality ...). Like all complex processes that last for generations, we can see many lights and many shadows.
As far as homosexuality is concerned, contributes initially to combat discrimination against homosexuals, but is now launching the message that sex, if you have not ever tried them all, are little more than a conservative, a closed-minded prude.
As we see, a
"pass lock" certain movements laudable, can be assumed that end up limiting the freedom that initially sought to obtain and that they be recognized. A paradox has occurred
on many occasions in history (for example, how persecuted Christians went from pursuers, although it took many centuries).
This type of "old-braking" Everywhere we see movements like feminism, racial equality, integration of immigrants and now gay rights . Solution? I think we should fight from liberalism, both negative and positive discrimination, but to be fair and recognize that generally, the former has been much more intense and lasting. Consider carrying out a generation or two very broad social contexts, in which we live and make us think that what we knew before going to break forever but then after a few years, we see that catastrophism was unfounded. Although
did not seem right to call homosexual unions "marriage" do not consider that this civil institution is extended to gays a danger to the West or go to corrode our civilization (which is facing serious problems, frankly.) The family is not perfect because of heterosexual parents and the marriage works best if it is between men and women. Hundreds of millions of families and marriages unhappy wrong throughout history, can testify.
In reality, the individual is so complex that their ability to adapt to the institutions is generally higher than the adaptability of the institutions of the complexity of each individual.
thousands of gay marriages will not last, probably more than heterosexual marriages, and? The important thing is that this institution serves as a primary way its members consider it important as serve society, as if the collective was more important than the individuals within the institution, is a deeply socialist argument. A successful marriage and good for those who are rarely will be detrimental to society.
definitive 
