Is Mr. Quick Arguing Against Freewill?

Posted on | May 14, 2012 | 61 Comments

by Smitty

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?

Category: Bill Quick

Comments

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

GAHCindy
May 14th, 2012 @ 9:08 am

” If you’re an engineer, tell me again what a penis is designed to do, formwise?” Really? He had to ask? Why even bother arguing with somebody who can’t figure that one out?
PaulLemmen
May 14th, 2012 @ 9:10 am

I believe that the A.P.A. made a mistake in caving to the pressure of special interest groups and removing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder in 1973. This is a result of the cultural Marxist tactic known as “lawfare” wherein groups like the LGBT groups (feminists, musloids and a raft of others have jumped into the tactic over the past few years) file lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions and basically drain the financial resources of their target until that target surrenders. (cf the lawsuits against Sarah Palin). None of this gives legitimacy to the group, only that they are willful and demand their way or you will be bankrupted. Deplorable!
Taxpayer1234
May 14th, 2012 @ 9:46 am

Well done, Smitty! The bacon argument was the slab-du-resistance!
ThePaganTemple
May 14th, 2012 @ 10:22 am

I hate to be simplistic, but when anybody makes a habit of going out of their way to defend homosexuals, let’s just say there’s a good chance they’ve developed a strong tolerance for pure protein.

On the other hand, where the right fucks up big time is also in the over-simplicity of its arguments. While technically correct, when you bandy about the word “choice” in this matter, you make it sound as though somebody got up out of bed one morning and said “hmmm, ain’t got nothing else to do, might as well go out and get me some dick up my ass.”

It’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that. These people are suffering from the throes of a mental illness and delusion, which in most cases is probably traceable back to some early childhood trauma as a germinating event, and/or it might even be a matter of long-term, though possible subtle, childhood abuse, amounting to a form of PTSD.

You do your cause no good when you go out of your way to make it sound like somebody just casually decided they prefer the same sex over the opposite gender.
Konshtok
May 14th, 2012 @ 10:31 am

are you arguing that sexuality (homo or hetro) is a choice ?

or that there is something you can do that would turn a straight person gay?
Here We Still Go Again | Daily Pundit
May 14th, 2012 @ 10:37 am

[…] We Still Go Again Posted on May 14, 2012 7:36 am by Bill Quick Is Mr. Quick Arguing Against Freewill? : The Other McCain Taking your argument, then, are you really going to treat gayness as a birth […]
ThePaganTemple
May 14th, 2012 @ 10:56 am

Yeah, it’s called psychotherapy.
robertstacymccain
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:03 am

is something you can do that would turn a straight person gay?

Perhaps you’ve noticed the alarming rise in lesbianism since Ed Schultz has been on TV.
htowt
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:11 am

Now that’s journalism!
t-dahlgren
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:14 am

Sadly, this is how the (budding neo) leftist argues.

Everything you say is suspect, and therefore open to direct challenge, up to and including the meaning of the word is.

All the while any effort to challenge or explore the assumptions hidden within their assertions is simply displaying your racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted predisposition.

I am beginning to agree with the other posters who have noted Quick’s slide, and I cannot help but wonder if his ‘libertarianism’ was merely a means of papering over a deeper conflict about the nature of humanity. Either htat or the poor boy just needs hisdaily fix of traffic
t-dahlgren
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:22 am

Of course sexuality is a choice, it is a willful behavior. To argue otherwise would inevitably lead to the sanctioning of all sorts of sexual behavior the majority of people find offensive – flashing, peeping, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.

What would prevent people who do those things from arguing that their acts, and the desires that predicate the acts, are not by choice but are by fault of birth?

And, before you go there, no I’m not arguing that we start locking up teh gays. Our society tolerates all sorts of consensual sexual acts committed alone, or between consenting adults, but that in no way means we must sanction them.
Adobe_Walls
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:31 am

What credible evidence is there that it’s not a choice?
Dai Alanye
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:44 am

Once we remove the concept of free will from human motivation and start explaining all actions as genetically determined we deny society the authority to set any norms.

There are, without doubt, individuals who are strongly driven — perhaps compelled — to steal, to rape, to murder, to become unscrupulous politicians or bloggers prone to malicious distortion. We have for the most part eliminated the excuse, “The devil made me do it.” Are all these anti-social actions now to be excused by a claim of bad genetic material? Indeed, is the very word “bad” to lose its application?
Charles
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:44 am

Is “producing sustained societal value” really the standard you want to set? That’s sounds more than vaguely socialist. I’m sure the mothers of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot thought they were producing sustained societal value.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get to spend eternity with that pound of bacon.
ThePaganTemple
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:47 am

This is where I find myself reluctantly on the side of homosexuals. Yes, it’s a “choice” as far as the choice to act on the urge to have sex with somebody of the same sex, but that’s not telling us anything as to what is making them have the desires they have. And until you crack that nut, this argument is going to be and remain circular, just another back and forth. I say its a mental illness and a delusion, but that’s not enough. The sexual drive is one of the strongest known to nature, and its not very many people who can resist it, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Just telling them they shouldn’t do it because its wrong, or a sin, is a pretty lazy way of dealing with the issue if you really want to help solve this problem for the good of society.

Imagine for one minute you know an elderly person who is in the throes of Alzheimers, Louis Body, or some other form of dementia. You can tell them over and over again that their delusions aren’t real, that that person staring at them in the bathroom mirror is them, not another person from another dimension.

Now to a normally functioning person, with a normally functioning brain, that is just common sense. But that’s just the problem, a person with dimentia is not a normally functioning person with a normally functioning brain. Common sense is lost on them as a result.

It’s the same with homosexuals. They don’t care that their sexual desires are outside the norm, all they know and see is they have the desire, a powerful urge, a sexual drive, and it feels normal to them, because their own brain has acclimated itself to that.

The only thing that’s going to help them is if they decide they want help. And the only way they’re going to want help is if they are made to understand they are operating under the throes of a mental illness and delusion. Not a casual “choice”.
smitty
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:53 am

Agreed. My intent there was to abstract the notion of children, in contrast to the demographic cratering going on around the world.
richard mcenroe
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:53 am

“I hate to be simplistic, but when anybody makes a habit of going out of
their way to defend homosexuals, let’s just say there’s a good chance
they’ve developed a strong tolerance for pure protein.”

And there’s a strong chance you full of an equally pure biological output.

It COULD be they’ve simply met a lot of gays, and see the ones they’ve met, most of them, as people and not just shrieking caricatures standing behind Gavin Newsom.

It COULD be they’ve been falsely outed themselves at one time or another, and remember what that felt like.

It COULD be that for a pagan you’re talking a lot like a Westboro Baptist.
richard mcenroe
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:54 am

A penis is designed to direct urine into snowbanks in grammatical patterns….

…what?
Ford Prefect
May 14th, 2012 @ 11:57 am

Little Green Footballs anyone? Bill Quick is the next Chuckie.

I grow weary of his straw men.

Boring.
Mike G.
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:00 pm

Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are!
Cube
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

Saying it’s built in and not a choice seems to be a device to escape responsibility for choices made by free will. The ones who scream the loudest that it’s not something anyone would choose sure seem to be awfully defensive and looking very hard for approval from the larger society.
Info
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

Good post, I saw a squib on the front page of Yahoo! about how the cast of some polygamist reality show was oh-so supportive of gay marriage (they know if gay marriage gets crammed down America’s throat, they’re next in line).

Small note: freewill is an adjective, not a noun. I’m pretty sure you meant “free will” in your headline. Tighten up, man — you’re not a
Pointer…
Ford Prefect
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

Yes, but here’s the problem with your argument. When the person with Alzheimer’s is aggressive (one of the main symptoms of this and other kinds of dementia) what do we do?

For example, here are some typical symptoms of Alzheimer’s:

• being verbally abusive or threatening

• being physically threatening, such as kicking or pinching

•lashing out violently at people or property

• overreacting to a situation, or becoming very agitated as a result of what seems to be a very minor setback or criticism.

I look at this list and I see things that Liberals are trying to not just control but to make outright illegal.

So if, Pagan, you’re saying that we can’t separate the behavior from the “condition” of homosexuality, and therefore, we should sanction the behavior, even reward it, then what the heck are we going to do about all the other psychological behaviors out there that have some element of genetic predisposition?

As was said earlier, it would not surprise me if a preference for diddling little boys is tied in some way to a genetic or psychological abnormality.

I think you’ll find that even the most conservative fundamentalist believes that homosexuals are simply fallen human beings like the rest of us that should take some level of responsibility for their own behavior. These same people (and I count them in their number) also believe that homosexual ACTIVITY is not unlike any sexual activity outside of marriage. I don’t want hetro swinger lifestyle advocates in high school assemblies any more than I want homosexual activity advocates in the same assembly.

This is what is maddening about this discussion. The pro-gay lobby conflates being homosexual with being unable to curb their lifestyle choice. They can be as gay as they want but they have zero right to push their proclivities on the rest of and they certainly have no right to claim that BEING homosexual is the same thing as engaging in homosexual exploits.

This is the problem with Quick’s lame argument’s. We’re against the promotion of the activity and he then claims that we must therefore hate gays.

The guy is a lamer.
ThePaganTemple
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

Those wedgies must have really been hard on you, Richie.
t-dahlgren
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

…
but that’s not telling us anything as to what is making them have the desires they have.

Nor should, even if it could. We lack the ability to see inside another’s head, so such will always remain an unknown and therefore can serve no use in making public decisions.

The answer to your concern is found just up the page.

Once we remove the concept of free will from human motivation and start explaining all actions as genetically determined we deny society the authority to set any norms.

The point being, we do not, presently cannot, and forever should not attempt to police the thoughts, feelings, and desires of humanity. To attempt to regulate the internal world of the individual would be a society based upon the concept of mindcrime. It would hold forth a certainty that would transcend (and therefore eliminate) any known faith. Anyone claiming the ability, much less authority to regulate others in such a manner is making a direct claim to some sort of divinity.

All we, in a free and just society can and should do is hold people accountable for the external actions they take.

What is truly sad is that we, the ostensible children of the Enlightenment, have so surrendered our society to the leftists that this concept is foreign to many, and needs repeating to most.
ThePaganTemple
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:26 pm

Have you ever heard of the idea of reading with comprehension? Go back and read what I said, and tell me where I said anything about genetic predispositions. I said plainly they are suffering from mental illness and a delusion, and should be treated for that. I never said anything about accepting it. I hate to sound like I’m trying to put myself across as just another person from an aggrieved interest group, but sometimes I think you see the word “pagan” and suddenly your imagination runs wild with you. All I’m saying is its more complicated than a simple choice. That’s all.
Ford Prefect
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

I think you’ll find that even the most conservative fundamentalist believes that homosexuals are simply fallen human beings like the rest of us; human beings that should take some level of responsibility for their own behavior. These same fundamentalists (and I count myself in their number) also believe that homosexual ACTIVITY is not unlike any sexual activity outside of marriage. It’s unhealthy both to the individual and society. As a result, I don’t want hetro swinger lifestyle advocates in high school assemblies any more than I want homosexual activity advocates in the same assembly. We need to build up the family unit, not promote things that make it even harder for people to commit to a quality marriage.

But the arguments about marriage are beside the point when it comes to Quick’s straw men arguments. We’re not talking about genetics or predispositions here. I would venture to guess that every hetro man reading this thread wouldn’t mind going out and having a little sex on the side if he knew that there were no consequences for doing so. But we know there are. We take responsibility for ourselves so we don’t just go out and shag whomever we want whenever we want. The “gay” lifestyle is all about NO personal responsibility even though the people who engage in it are free agents who could certainly choose NOT to engage in the lifestyle. BUT THEY DON’T.

This is what is maddening about this discussion. The pro-gay lobby conflates being homosexual with being unable to curb their lifestyle choice and therefore, because they can’t control themselves, they want the rest of us to approve.

Well what about the Gordon Gekkos of the world? They might have a predisposition to be greedy. How about if we do the Gekko seminars at every high school to talk about greed being good? How about if we stop bulling the wall treat brokers for being greedy, they are just acting on their impulses after all.

This is the problem with Quick’s lame arguments. If you can’t separate the predisposition from the choice, then there is no point in having any discussion about any negative behavior.
smitty
May 14th, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

Excellent point, but I have to eat the bogus URL, or risk breaking links.
Quartermaster
May 14th, 2012 @ 1:02 pm

Unless, of course, if you’re some one like Bill Quick who takes his own propaganda seriously.
Quartermaster
May 14th, 2012 @ 1:06 pm

There is utterly none that it is a genetic problem. There is a great deal of evidence that it is a mental disorder. Dpending on the means by which the mental problem is generated, it could be a very powerful problem that is not easily dealt with by the persons will.

From a spiritual standpoint, sexual problems reach deeply into the person, indeed, to the very core of the individual.
Quartermaster
May 14th, 2012 @ 1:13 pm

I have never heard anysone seriously posit that homosexuality is a casual choice on the order of having bacon and eggs or Pancakes and sausage for breakfast.

I do agree that mental illnesses can be overpowering, and based on my observation, sexual mental illnesses are some of the more serious reaching all the way to the core of teh individual.

It has been said that Psychology is a religion that competes with Christianity in seeking answers for the human condition. The assertion has some measure of truth in that psychology long ago gave up any pretese to science by whoring itself out for politcal purposes. OTOH, problems of teh spirit are completely out of reach to Psychology because it does not acknowledge anything from that quarter, preferring a pretense to materialism instead. Exodus is the only organization that has had some success in converting homosexuals to straights.
Bob Belvedere
May 14th, 2012 @ 1:29 pm

A Leftist would claim: ‘Good, bad…it’s all relative; what’s bad for you is not necessarily bad for me – don’t be judgmental!’

They have rejected Morality, therefore they have rejected standards.
Bob Belvedere
May 14th, 2012 @ 1:33 pm

Free Willy!…er…Smitty!
scarymatt
May 14th, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

This dichotomy has always seemed false to me. There have always been some people who just seemed gay from the beginning and others who have surprised me when they came out.

Saying “there’s no evidence for genetics” seems wildly overconfident. A complicated behavior like sexuality seems unlikely to be controlled by some simple gene that could be pulled out via correlations. The genius of DNA is something we’ll probably never get anywhere close to unraveling.
Bob Belvedere
May 14th, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

Actually, if you think about it: homosexual men are all in favor of free willies.
Bob Belvedere
May 14th, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

We all have predispositions, some of which are good and some which are bad. The civilized man constantly works to curb the bad ones because they damage the fabric of Ordered Liberty.

The Left would have us ‘let it all hang out’ and, as Rousseau advocated, return to state of nature, because this would create Chaos. In Leftist Thinking, Chaos provides an opportunity for themselves to ride in and restore order. This allows them to claim power as their reward for doing so and makes the people much more amenable to going along with their ‘re-educational’ schemes.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 14th, 2012 @ 1:52 pm

Have you ever on the storm tossed seas of heterosexuality, ever had the urge to swim to gay island? My guess is no. That would suggest you are wired to appreciate Rule 5 (which makes sense).

I assume some people are hardwired (in part) to get the urge on over different things. Some of it is upbringing and early imprinting, some of it is genetic, some of it is prenatal hormones, some of it is confusion, and some of it is choice. Sexuality is complex.
ThePaganTemple
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

I think I also said the homosexual should want to be helped and seek out therapy. We can encourage them, but I never said anything about forcing them. The only thing we can do is encourage the realization that homosexuality is some kind of mental or emotional disorder, a delusion, and once that is established as a baseline for potential therapy, then the individual is left with the choice of delving into his own past for the answers he needs, with professional psychotherapy, psychiatry, or spiritual help.

Otherwise, the best we can do is come down hard on the political panderers and radical activists who insist on foisting this mental illness as “normal” and worthy of special legislative protections and even encouragement. Otherwise, left to its logical conclusions, its going to bleed into all aspects of society. Then its going to be that much harder to deal with it, and with all the attendant ramifications.

Free will is a funny thing. Its way too easy to find comfort in comforting words of approval and encouragement when the truth is not so pleasant.
smitty
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

You’ve restated my argument nicely. Show me the evidence. Short of evidence, we’re waving hands, with a subjective call on whether the hands are waved in a gay fashion.
smitty
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

We’re all born with the equipment for heterosexuality, homosexuality, murder, and prostitution.
Datechguy
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

In terms of theology it is not relevant if Homosexual inclination is a choice or not as the Catholic Church teaches it is the act not the inclination is the sin. As humans we all are inclined to sin whatever sins we are most vulnerable to and must do our best to avoid them.

Where I think it will be interesting is if Mr. Quick is proved correct how this will affect the Abortion issue. At that time we will see a seismic shift on the left as Homosexual advocates clash with feminists over the right to abort based on sexual orientation and on the right between those who value life over all and those who don’t.

It will be a very revealing moment
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:21 pm

Equipment sure. desire?

I admit murder has crossed my mind. But homosexuality?

Do you have something to share with the group?
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

…with a subjective call on whether the hands are waved in a gay fashion.
You know it when you see it.
ThePaganTemple
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:36 pm

It will be a very hilarious moment, you mean. I can just see it now, Catholics and fundamentalist Baptists marching in front of abortion clinics alongside guys in rouge and eye shadow, with open leather vests, hairy chests, and chaps. Unfortunately, as big a kick as I would get out of that, its not going to happen, because there is no “gay gene”. At the very most, there might be something genetic that might cause certain people to react to childhood trauma or adolescent PTSD by becoming gay, but the gene in or of itself just ain’t going to cut it.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

I agree with you Smitty on free will. We all have the ability to control our desires. But most of us have sexual desires that go in the basic genetic default position (male + female). Why some do not is probably do to a lot of reasons.

And I say this not to be hateful or provocative: Pedophilia is obviously a sexual disorder…so who decides what sexual activities are disorders and what are accepted?
SDN
May 14th, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

As I’ve pointed out to Bill Quick and others, the worst thing that could happen to gays is if they proved it was genetically based.

90 seconds after they did that, there would be a home genetic test kit, and the next day the abortion clinics would be doing a land-office business.
Ford Prefect
May 14th, 2012 @ 3:01 pm

Point taken. I’ll withdraw my direct argument against your position then.

The issue I have, and maybe I just read into your post this thought, was that it seemed like you were saying homosexuality is like Alzheimer’s in that the homosexual just wants to have sex and can’t help himself so we need to help him understand he is in the “throes of a mental illness and delusion”.

I don’t concur with this.

Males, if they had the no-consequence choice would be forever promiscuous. But unlike their hetero counterparts, homosexuals can get as much sex as they want because finding other promiscuous homosexuals is pretty easy pickings.

Meanwhile, if you are a heterosexual, you tend to curb those urges or they are curbed for you, mostly because the opposite sex doesn’t like promiscuous men. But if there is no barrier to finding frequent sex, then a man (such as one who doesn’t find having sex with other men to be repulsive) can get what he wants.

Whether he has a disorder or some psycho-trauma in his background, is immaterial to me. If he needs help, fine. If he made the choice to have promiscuous sex, whatever.

But as soon as his proclivities start costing me money (i.e to fight AIDS or to sponsor high school assemblies advancing the gay lifestyle) or begins to eat away at the foundation of our civil society, then I call a red flag on that. Those activities ARE choices being made by the “gay” lobby. You (not you personally Pagan) can’t tell me they just can’t help getting involved in undermining our society.

You and I probably agree for the most part on this Pagan but my offended-ness goes beyond an irritation that these people are costing me money and a civil society. They are also attacking the foundation of our Christian heritage and the basis for a society historically blessed by God. I doubt God expects Christians to try to convince homosexuals not to have sex with whatever or whomever they want but I firmly believe that he is grieved when Christians allow their country to be debased to the point of destroying the institution of marriage
richard mcenroe
May 14th, 2012 @ 3:05 pm

Not a lot of wedgies applied in IOBC, Pagan. Lot of careers ended there, though.
Ford Prefect
May 14th, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

I clicked “like” on this, primarily because your second paragraph is exactly right.
Cube
May 14th, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

Up until you “redistribute” their own property at an OWS protest, that is.