How is it possible that homosexuality (in the form of sexual activity, parenting, bonding, courtship) be considered EVIL or STRANGE, when it occurs throughout nature, among mammals, birds, reptiles, and even insects? It is objectively NATURAL for trillions of individual organisms, including humans, to take these forms. So you see, it’s much harder to make the case that what is ‘natural’ is ‘evil’—and that is how a thinking person might respond to such an absurd position.
Now, if their position is derived from some amalgamation of natural law (e.g. Aristotle, Aquinas), where human violations are based on expressions of free will, and not on innate predispositions, the response would be to question the validity of that particular formulation of natural law in light of so much contradictory evidence. When trillions of organisms repeatedly violate such ‘natural law’, surely we would immediately begin to doubt its accuracy.
Furthermore, if human violations of natural law are matters of free will, then it becomes political. In contemporary Russia, for example, human homosexual forms have become officially demonized. Since, according to this ‘natural law’ position, it is a matter of free will, then individuals, being free to act ‘as they wish’, are persecuted for acting ‘as they wished’. By definition, Russia must then be categorised as (at least) an authoritarian state, which no free-thinking person could ever wish to live in.
This means that if we disregard non-human evidence of homosexual forms, and assume human homosexual forms are violations of natural law explained by free will, the only way for society to comprehend homosexual forms in humans is to criminalize them. Since we live, in principle, in open societies, we cannot disregard human and non-human evidence of homosexual forms, and nor can we criminalize these forms for conflicting with demonstrably-false nomothetic constructions of human and non-human behaviour. In future open human societies, once reparations and reparatory protections have been assimilated, homosexual forms will be, necessarily, irrelevant to public institutions. As with gender identity, I look forward to the day that the public space is blind to these forms.
Since gender is irrelevant in public, and since individuals are not fully autonomous, nor is their status as individuals relevant, should we not delete the pronouns ‘he’, ‘she’, and ‘I’ from institutional vocabulary?
Understanding Human Culture in 42 minutes
Star Trek: The Next Generation has been justifiably lauded for many things, and in many ways. There are, of course, classic episodes and films, too many to count. One episode in particular, however, demands our revision.
From the links below you can view Season 3 Ep 4, entitled “Who Watches the Watchers.” It is a thoroughly compelling account of how rational beings can grapple with the mysterious. The crew of the Enterprise finds itself once again violating the Prime Directive when the bronze-age (yet rational and cohesive) subjects of an anthropological study accidentally encounter the advanced technology of the Federation.
USA and USA proxies: CLICK HERE
Non-USA & Alternative: CLICK HERE
What we see here in this work of science fiction, is that, whilst it may not be the only subject of inquiry, understanding how societies evolve may very well be the most important. It maximises context and disciplinary reach, and provides lessons for all levels and units of analysis for all generations. See how the proto-Vulcan-esque society handles the problem of what to do when faced with the ‘unexplainable’. Does the society shrivel, and declare divinity, or does it push forward with their own reasonable questions? If we had been visited (accidentally) by a kind and inquisitive alien intelligence a thousand years ago, how would we have reacted—compared to these delightful beings?
On the surface, the point is simple: gradual progress peacefully eradicates superstition. And this is most definitely our point, too. But beyond that, the episode reminds us of several key epistemological lessons:
- All description and explanation—THINKING—requires the identification of evidence.
- Evidence can be linguistic-mathematical (e.g. calculations) and physical (e.g. observation of an object).
- The identity of the evidence is necessarily abstracted (i.e. encoded).
- Whilst the identity of the evidence is abstracted, the evidence per se is not abstracted (i.e. the physical components of the objects definitely exist without identity).
- We consider an explanation as accurate when we have evidence for it.
- If implausible explanations are explanations with little or no evidence, then implausible explanations are not desired.
- When confronted with a situation with no evidence for ANY explanation, the process of explanation is suspended. When no evidence exists for any explanation, no explanation is possible. In this way, rationality is merely “using evidence to identify explanations”.
- Superstition, then, is one form of assuming explanation without evidence.
- But, since quantity of evidence is directly proportional to quality of evidence, better quality evidence is to be preferred. This means investigation yields better and broader evidence, and, by extension, better explanations.
- Since investigation is necessarily an ongoing and incomplete process, better investigation is expected over time.
- Assuming a constant rate of improved investigation, evidence will become better and broader over time.
- As such, explanation can never be ultimate, but will be better. Hence, implausible explanations are to be rejected until they are plausible.
Your video is “going viral” largely because you have described your video as “going viral”.