Facts vs. Fiction - a specific question

[Boston]

Regarding acts not of theft, fraud, or initiative force:

You're not free if you're merely free to do what you want -- rather, you're free only when
you're free to do what you ought.  

There is a myriad of personal behavior that one may embrace.
That doesn't mean that it's ipso facto good for you, much good less for society.
"While all is permissible, not all is profitable."  ~ Apostle Paul

Who decides?  The individual, of course, and not the government. 

That's a summation of Preston's point regarding hedonism.
The goal is quality self-government, especially within a libertarian range of personal freedom.

Oh, and btw, social mores against those exhibiting poor self-government is a proper libertarian response.
Shunning, ostracization, etc. are examples of the social free-market.
I.e., everybody must pay full-freight for their beliefs and behaviors. 

____________
I designed the FSW to quickly self-operate without leadership, as the
barest embodiment of an idea:  "People like us should migrate to Wyoming."
What you all then do here is not up to the FSW, and certainly not up to me.
Run for mayor, be a hermit, or anything in between.

Boston

[socalserf]

Idividual liberty and Human rights are my moto.
Politics is a cesspool I prefer not to wade in (though I do enjoy a good BM).

[SteveM]

I think the "radical political agenda" and "human rights" is a vast chasm and can't be ignored.

Human rights are those to life and liberty, which includes private property and free association. Every human being on the planet has the exact same rights.

The radical political agenda of so many groups, such as "gays," is the demand that they are "due" and MUST be given special consideration over and above their basic human rights, and that everyone else MUST be forced to accept those phony "rights" - usually at the cost of their own.

The latter is not a very popular thing with most of us, I believe.

That pretty much sums it up for me.  Live however you choose to live as long as it doesn't infringe on others, but don't try and force me to believe or accept anything if I choose not to do so.  I don't care who you sleep with, marry, whether you go to church or don't believe in God at all.  Live your life as you see fit and allow me to do the same.  We'll come together and work in some areas, and won't in others.  But it's you and I who choose to accept or not accept beliefs and actions, not the government deciding for us.

[Paul Bonneau]

If a gay man wants to rent a house from me, I will base my decision on various factors, and knowing me, his sex preferences will be a small factor if not nonexistent (actually, I already have rented to gays). If I know he is a gay activist who wants to force all landlords to accept gay renters, I will not rent to him and will fight what he is trying to get passed.

Personally, I don't favor homogenized communities (which is what happens with a powerful federal government). In a true free country, communities are going to be more diverse (differences between them) and more internally homogeneous. That is for example, some communities will be predominantly Christian, some predominantly atheist/agnostic, some predominantly straight, some predominantly gay. These things will be enforced by practices like shunning. There's nothing wrong with this; it's the way it should be. Those who do not fit into the predominant class will just have to have thick hides - or move.

"People are less than whole unless they gather themselves voluntarily into groups of souls in harmony. Gathering themselves to pursue individual, family, and community dreams consistent with their private humanity is what makes them whole; only slaves are gathered by others."
-- John Taylor Gatto

You're not free if you're merely free to do what you want -- rather, you're free only when
you're free to do what you ought.... 

Who decides?  The individual, of course...

I have to admit, this is a distinction that escapes me. If the individual decides, then he is free to do what he wants. Even if what he wants is harmful to himself. In fact, especially then.

[kylben]

I have to admit, this is a distinction that escapes me.

It makes more sense by thinking of freedom as more than just external political freedom.  A person driven by wants may not really be free, even in a completely free political environment.  Addiction is one obvious example, but I can think of others more subtle.

In general, the shorter one's time horizon is, the less free he is in the long run.  Wants are immediate, oughts are long-term. I'd even go so far as to argue that the key feature of the decline of American society has been a dramatic shortening of so many people's time horizon. 

What I'm guessing Boston was getting at was something like:  getting involved in relationships based only on satisfying sexual wants prevents a person from being able to form more deep and meaningful relationships - and that gay relationships are the former by definition.  The principle is correct, but I wouldn't agree that that applies inherently to gays, and lots of straight people make the same mistake.

Again, that's my interpretation, I don't want to put word's in Boston's mouth.   

[sbeckman]

What I'm guessing Boston was getting at was something like: 

getting involved in relationships based only on satisfying sexual wants prevents a person from being able to form more deep and meaningful relationships -

and that gay relationships are the former by definition.

Part A-- Absolutely!

Part B-- I call BS.  Having known people in long term committed relationships (both women and men) I think this inaccurate.  You may not think of them as "deep and meaningful relationships", but they certainly did.

Now if you limit your definition of "deep and meaningful relationships" to the ability to procreate then...that seems a very narrow limited view, and would mean that a heterosexual couple that could not procreate was a relationship "based only on satisfying sexual wants".

I can't imagine that anyone would limit their view in this manner?

[kylben]

You may not think of them as "deep and meaningful relationships", but they certainly did.

I said I disagreed with it.  I said that I think that Boston might have meant that, but that is based on my own limited outsider understanding of a conservative Christian viewpoint, and the Biblical principles underlying it. I don't know if he or anyone else actually thinks so or not.

I can't imagine that anyone would limit their view in this manner?

From a Christian perspective, if homosexuality is wrong before God, then at the very least it interferes with a meaningful relationship with God, and thus, probably, with other aspects of a meaningful relationship. From my own perspective, homosexuality just is, for the vast majority of those who are, and the inability to procreate is, as you say, not at all unique to gays. There are many other things that make for meaningful relationships.

I'm not defending the view, and I'm not criticizing a view that I don't know for sure anybody holds.  I was explaining what I think the meaning is of the phrase that Paul questioned, and speculating on how it relates to the thread topic. It is a meaning that I largely agree with, aside from that one possibly included detail.

Until Boston or someone else weighs in on what they actually think about it, I don't think I want to continue arguing a hypothetical position. Everything else I said in that post, aside from "Part B", are things I actually do believe, so have at those.

[Boston]

It makes more sense by thinking of freedom as more than just external political freedom.  A person driven by wants may not really be free, even in a completely free political environment.  Addiction is one obvious example, but I can think of others more subtle.

In general, the shorter one's time horizon is, the less free he is in the long run.  Wants are immediate, oughts are long-term. I'd even go so far as to argue that the key feature of the decline of American society has been a dramatic shortening of so many people's time horizon. 

What I'm guessing Boston was getting at was something like:  getting involved in relationships based only on satisfying sexual wants prevents a person from being able to form more deep and meaningful relationships

That's a partial example of what I meant.

In my view, self-government is the key. 
I realize that secular libertarians do not believe in the concept of "sin".   (Only the ZAP rules.)
While the ZAP achieves much inter-personal order, it collapses as an intra-personal standard.
For that, we must look elsewhere.

My personal view of "ought" is necessarily colored by my being a Christian.
Biblically, sexual acts between males is not only a sin, but an "abomination". 
While I wouldn't criminalize homosexuality, I also do not want to live near it.
This is not "homophobia", for a dislike/revulsion is not a fear.

We have opportunities to sin in a myriad of ways which do not violate the ZAP.
Laziness, drunkenness, adultery, reviling, etc.
These acts are "not good" for us, and demonstrably so.
Regarding homosexuality, there is much evidence to suggest that it is not good for people.
Even in ultra-tolerant Sweden, suicides amongst homosexuals is higher than for heteros.

Are homosexuals born or naturally inclined that way?  Very probably.
However, we are all born or naturally inclined in some ways that in practice will prove personally unprofitable.
How much we recognize and deal with that is up to us.

None of what I just expressed, btw, has anything whatever to do with the FSW.
Believe in or scoff at the notion of "sin" as you will -- it does not affect anybody's SofI.
This thread really is moot, regarding the FSW, and I'm not keen on continuing it because
it seems potentially divisive.  So, I'll close it here as we return to living freer Wyoming lives.

Boston

[Paul Bonneau]

I'm taking advantage of my admin status to reply to this locked thread.

I didn't see the discussion getting hot. I think the original post was a valid one, and on topic in this board, and of interest to a lot of people. I don't think continuing such discussions are necessarily divisive. And despite not being a Christian, I don't scoff at the notion of sin. 

[Boston]

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Paul, but I nonetheless disagree.

I still believe that this topic is irrelevant to the FSW and potentially divisive,
in the same camp as our threads on immigration and abortion.

Being of mere interest to many here is not, to me, a compelling counterweight.
So, I'd rather continue to err on the side of discretionary caution regarding topics as these.

Boston