The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Is Mr. Quick Arguing Against Freewill?

Posted on | May 14, 2012 | 61 Comments

by Smitty

Are we really having this argument?

Is it your contention that homosexuality is a choice? If so, I disagree. I would further contend that the weight of scientific evidence is on my side of the disagreement, leaving you in the position of arguing that something RSM might call a “neutral objective fact” is otherwise.

Yeah, I’ll see your ‘scientific evidence’ and raise you some Anthropogenic Global Warming, Bill. Are you implying that gayness is a genetic defect?

I have actually studied a bit of Biochemistry, and I’m confident that the Gay Grail, or “Grayl” which you seek just doesn’t exist. In terms of the OSI Stack, I’d venture that sexuality is a Layer 1 implementation, and homosexuality is Layer 7. Taking your argument, then, are you really going to treat gayness as a birth defect? Really?

“Form follows function?” If you’re an engineer, tell me again what a penis is designed to do, formwise?

Given the set A={‘penis’, ‘anus’, ‘vagina’}, and a few centuries, my utilitarian argument is that there is exactly one pair of two items from A capable of producing sustained societal value. I’m sure that I’ve missed something. Oh, I’ve probably missed much. But that’s what the Internt’s for, no? Emphasis mine here:

And what I’d like to get from you, Smitty, is your thoughts on whether admitting the existence of homosexuality as a reality, not a choice but as much a part of some humans as skin color is of others, is “political correctness?”

Homosexuality is something people do, in the same vein as shooting heroine. I guess that was a vain attempt at injecting humor into the thread. Please, needle me about how I’m injecting “sinful” notions into what is intended as a dispassionate, sober inquiry.

But let’s check out your slippery slope, Bill. If you’re going to argue a ‘Sexual Calvinism’, and contend that people are prisoners of their groins, then why do we maintain this façade of representative democracy? Why don’t we just suck up ObamaCare, and every other Postmodern, Orwellian bit of nonsense intent on destroying Western Civilization?

Maybe there is a middle ground I’m missing here, but it seems that we are either arguing for liberty or against liberty. People can jump through any hoops they want and label it ‘marriage’, but if I lose the right to say ‘marriage means what it has meant across time and societies’, then we’ve lost much, indeed.

In closing, when the Postmodern, PC wrecking ball has fully destroyed meaning, it is my intention to marry a pound of bacon. Because, at that point, why not?


61 Responses to “Is Mr. Quick Arguing Against Freewill?”

  1. Cube
    May 14th, 2012 @ 5:25 pm


    who decides what … are disorders and what are accepted? 

    This is the root of the argument: Who decides right and wrong?  I don’t believe that any of us are wise enough either as individuals or as a culture to come up with the correct answers.  And even if we were, there would always be some element of self-interest involved.

  2. Dave
    May 14th, 2012 @ 6:13 pm

    one of the commentators on this post (and maybe one of the authors of this blog) is gay. At least, it’s statistically likely. You didn’t decide to be gay, you were born that way. There’s nothing wrong with you. You are not mentally ill. 

  3. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 14th, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

    I have no problem condemning child molestors as some of the lowest of criminals that should be prosecuted with vigor.  That is easy.  

    But when it comes to consenting adults, what activities they engage in voluntarily and in private are not my concern.  That does not mean I have to sanction it.  

  4. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 14th, 2012 @ 7:36 pm
  5. Quartermaster
    May 14th, 2012 @ 8:11 pm

    About 20 years ago some maroon said he had discovered a “Gay gene.” At first the Ghey activists were saying “I tolya so.”  But, then, tehy thought a bit, and teh honest one’s were saying that it wasn’t such a good thing as people would be testing for that gene and if it was positive, off to the clinic to end junior’s Ghey future.

    They know, really know, that a Ghey gene discovery would be an utter disaster for them.

  6. Quartermaster
    May 14th, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

    We don’t police the thoughts, feelings, or desires of anyone, unless you are the $PLC. We do, however, police actions. As the founders put it, “because men are not angels, we have government.” You can’t long tolerate those who will act out their anti-social proclivities. They must be excluded from civil society, or it will break down. In other words, you get what we have now, which will get worse as the left saps societal strength for dealing with sociopaths.

  7. Quartermaster
    May 14th, 2012 @ 8:21 pm

    The problem with you statement is that there is no evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality. Some twit said he had found one back in the 90s and his assertion was quietly buried because

    a) He hadn’t found it as he had claimed (it was very quickly debunked)
    b) The Ghey activists themselves wanted it buried because it would be a disaster for them.

  8. Quartermaster
    May 14th, 2012 @ 8:26 pm

    Afraid that ship has already sailed. There is no genetic component, and it has already been established, long ago, in fact, that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

    If you really believe what you wrote, then you are a rube of the lowest order.

  9. scarymatt
    May 14th, 2012 @ 9:39 pm

    No, that’s not a problem with my statement. I’m pretty confident stating that we don’t really know why people become gay. I suspect there is a mixture of reasons that are different for different people.

    The actual “objective journalism*” reasons why people become gay are a very different topic than the implications of discovering a genetic cause.

    It’s not unlike the Freakonomics argument that the legalization of abortion was the biggest cause in the subsequent drop in crime rates. They may be right (I’m skeptical, but their argument seems to have merit), but I’m not about to advocate abortion on demand for the purpose of safer neighborhoods.

    * Yes, that’s shameless pandering to the host.

  10. ThePaganTemple
    May 14th, 2012 @ 10:34 pm

     The comparison to Alzheimer’s was just meant to demonstrate how the brain makes things seem to a person who suffers from any particular ailment that affects the brain. It’s impossible to be objective because your brain pretty much controls everything about you. If your brain makes you see winged purple unicorns grazing in your back yard, all the lectures about common sense and reason will probably be lost on you. As far as your concerned its real, because you can see it, hear, maybe smell it and possibly even touch it. If anybody disputes the point, you’re liable to become agitated, angry, and might even think the other person is crazy.

    Well nobody has an innate, deep seated drive to own a unicorn, so just imagine a person in the throes of a delusion where their sexual urges and drive is so out of whack they want to have sex with a person of the same sex. That’s what make it so difficult, because you’re dealing with one of the most powerful urges in the universe, actually a force of nature.

    Yes, they can choose to not act on it, but let’s face it, very few heterosexuals have the capacity to choose to become celibate, its kind of unrealistic to expect large numbers of homosexuals to do so. I’m sure there are plenty that have done so, and do, but I’d imagine they’re the minority, and its probably a very hard struggle.

  11. Quartermaster
    May 15th, 2012 @ 7:39 am

    Sorry, but it is a problem with your statement. And, to the contrary, we do know how some people become homosexuals, and have known for quite sometime – through sexual abuse.

    That is not saying we know how all of them get that way, from the point of, you know, actual science. But with the mapping of the genome it is about as certain as it can get that there is no gehy gene.

    The most basic cause, however, is the sinful human condition. In Romans chapter 1 Paul deals with the problem magnificently. But, that’s one of the so called “clobber verses” as the ignorant laft calls it, and is certain to be ignored, although the current societal situation confirms Paul’s observation as did the current situation in which he lived.