Oh, so you're bi, aren't ya, Ibram?

Eh, I wouldn't be surprised if humans were a little bit bisexual in nature.

History and the present back this view up well. Egypt, Greece, and I'm sure many other ancient cultures were entirely accepting and even encouraging of bisexuality and right now we see a lot of bisexuality in girls since it is socially acceptable. If it was socially acceptable for males to be bisexuals, I would almost guarantee it would be just as common as what you see with girls.

It depends on the morals of people doing the judging. For some, I'm sure it is.

I don't trust other people's assertion of what is moral or right or wrong, nor do I much care. For me, if I chose to make such a judgment, no.

Make that a HELL NO!

Nope.

Whether it's a choice or not, I don't know, but there's nothing wrong with being gay.

If it feels good, do it.

Doesn't look like anyone who feels it is wants to chime in. case closed. ;)

I think its an individual decision - its between them and their "whatever." To each his own, ya know?

Trying to define sexuality is like trying to define a color, or a flavor... You can't really, because the experience is unique to each and every one of us.

The same of "morality" in my opinion. Each of us has a very unique set of experiences that have defined who we are up until every point in our lives, until death. The longer we live, more experiences are added to the pile of things we weigh in making decisions. What we may have been for or against 5 years ago may be drastically different than now, or 5 years from now. Or even 5 days...

For example: my own sexuality. Many years ago, I would have said I was completely straight. Since then, I have had homosexual experiences, and in fact find both women and men sexually attractive. Those experiences, in addition to the fact that I am a lot less ignorant than I was 15 years ago (from both reading and talking to people about sex in general) has led me to scrap trying to define sexuality at all.

Who and what turns me on from day to day is always evolving. I am just (horny little ole) me.

wow. Very well put, LabRat. I remember when I was 18 and had a completely different viewpoint on both sexuality and morality than I do now. Having been raised in a more religious tradition I didn't feel I was judging gays, but that at the core it was morally wrong and unhealthy. While I also felt that *gasp* fornicating was wrong, I didn't seem to have a problem justifying that one. 18 feels like a long time ago now and I find it interesting that my parents still pretty much have the same views they did then on sexuality/morality, yet mine have expanded to the point where I think (and live by) the only limitation should be whatever that individual chooses for themselves.

I have a lot more problems with the words "morally" and "wrong" than I do with "gay."

The larger question is not about homosexuality but about what is "morality" and who has the right to project their morals on others.

excellent - well written - better than how I tried to say it.

Kant's argument also works against being a priest.

Yes.

Personally, I define morality as as a set of ethics that guide the interaction between a group of people (2+). Ethics will have to be defined as what is right and wrong.

That is why I can't see how homosexuality can be seen as immoral or even a morality issue in a sociological sense. Unless you get really picky, whether a person is a homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, it really doesn't affect anyone else. The only way I can see it being a morality issue is if it is one forced upon us by a higher power or a person in power. But that should not happen in the United States being a secular democracy (republic).

That's a curious distinction, LJ. I wonder how you might go about defending the realness of "rights" without some appeal to inherent value and moral prohibition.

In other words, your sister's right to self-determination (the right to not have sex forced on her) has to be, in some way, connected to her inherent value as a human being. That statement of value then carries with it certain prohibitive statements, statements that declare the boundary actions which violate the right.

Well, if you have statements of inherent value and statements of prohibited acts based on that value, you have morality.

If you see some other way to construct "rights", and to give some justification for their "rightness" without appealing to moral language, I'd love to hear it.