[Objective Moral Relativism and homosexuality]
I don't like the postmodern idea. I may find myself on the side of normative moral relativism, ... but the postmodern stance of radical denial is ... well, ... extremely ... shaky. You can basically just argue postmodern-ish by saying no to your respective other in the conversation. Well, thats how Christians feel about Atheists and Atheists about Christians. I guess.
Postmodernism is an attempt at disassembly and thus sparks conversation, basically challenging those that remain to 'explain' where they go wrong.
The one holds a belief versus the other. The postmodern one may not truly believe in his own postmodern standards, but argue that way nonetheless because his belief is that what he is dismantling deserves that treatment. What do we take for granted? On the one side we have the 'established way things work' (Academia) and there everything is well and fine. But looking elsewhere, ... different intellectual standards reign and however that iterates into moral relativism ... the postmodern stance yet has points where it properly criticizes the stagnation that occurs when taking everything for granted. Like - why aren't things perfectly fine?
I so find myself leaning into a new thing. "Objective" moral relativism. It goes one step beyond normative moral relativism while somehow cutting a loop back around the other. Its as to say that 'yes': Normative moral relativism is right, ... but if no morality is better or 'righter' than others - which one is even capable of existing?
So we wonder about 'how' they exist. Why or how do 'we' here in the west specifically believe that gay people should have rights and that slave-ownership is bad. Which ... I mean ... "you know me". I'd advocate for slavery - but if you payed attention you could tell that this can easily be taken out of context. So I'm here not debating about the term 'slavery' - but more what we imply within that term ... in that specific context. The context of us saying that its morally wrong.
Which is ... by western standards however ... the ethically right thing.
But how do we determine that?
This ... goes back to Noam Chomsky.
He went on to say that we did make progress - as ... basically main argument against post-modernism. And I agree. While now cultures that still execute homosexuals do so on some network of cultural norms - they don't have it different than us. We have our norms, they have theirs. Their rules are such because someone said so. Our rules ... ? Well, I come to think about the French Revolution, the US civil war, the fall of the third Reich. Those are events that broadened our modern understanding of ethics. In their own way ... post-modern thought at their time.
The thing is that once we question the authority behind the rules that we obey we move beyond that way of how morality and ethics work. We ask ourselves and because that is done by a plurality it is sortof ... inherently inclusive. You and I, we, we want to make things right and in some way we come to the end that everyone should be able to live. And do ... stuff. And this consolidates as we don't have any rational grounds to debate against it.
Where, those that do will have to resort to 'fears'. "Gay people corrupt our society". Uh, which is true when replacing society by 'current norm'. I mean - a few years back rather than today I guess. In that sense does 'one' transgression tear down the whole system of ethics, ... .
Someone else then could respond: I know gay people and they aren't that bad!
When it gets to me - the problem now is that it in a way goes against this ... objective sense of morality. We say "hurting people is bad" - while others say: "But I like getting hurt". So, OK - if its just BDSM - whatever. But going further ... is that ... good ... or necessary ... or ... even asked for?
And there we get to the crux. There is now a 'new new' thing - and its argumentation is sound. The ethical code so is in a state where it has advanced - but in that advancement is built on a foundation or whatever which now lacks the handles to move that one step further. I mean ... 'not killing' ... comes as a conclusion thats easy to understand. Its in all of our interest. So that side 'stands' ... on its own merits ... and however we got to that conclusion, we can't move beyond that on the same merits.
And to actually move beyond ... we so I think first have to adapt a new "meta" on terms of ethics and morality.
The reason why I think men are straight isn't anything homophobic. I ... just have to day that being straight is the biologically more simple road. If you're a man, you need a woman. Thats ... easy. No need to question it! That makes things easier. What I want to say is that ... I assume basically that the more testosterone you'd pump into me, the more of a stereotypical male I would be.
Well - I thunked there is more to it than just "duh". Something more about which traits specifically come with 'manliness'. As, we can think of the sperm and the egg, but also - just looking at how much of the things 'done' were done by men compared to women. I - afraid of some backlash - would argue that the woman is first inspired to step up to the man by means of philosophy. Or so ... inspiration. Getting a sense of a challenge, or ... well, to fight against oppression.
Its not to belittle the woman.
But if we want to speak about progressivism, we might have to think back ... as far as some Jeanne D'Arc. Well, yea. In both regards. On the one side we have said woman rising up through the ranks to fame - which - speaks of the people she's been around. Then ... well. Whatever happened isn't ... gender exclusive I'd say. But ... thats where women would argue that being female certainly didn't help her.
Which we can also take both ways. For once thinking of misogyny ... or on the other side that ... they don't see it that way.
Thing is thing. She certainly represents some shift in morality and ethics. "The people didn't care about her gender".
Anyhow. Life is ... complicated I guess.
The thing is now, and thats possibly just as true for the woman, that in order to function in society you have to move your own gender and its interests into the background. What I mean in regards of men is that their "cocktail" ... uh, ... "genetic tendencies to move forward/further/..." practically implies this ... shift of focus rather naturally. The woman on the other hand who is by biology bound to spend the time of raising her children (nourishment?) to so "breed" upon the household. Thus the attitude that the female is the 'introverted mind' - at which points her gender and other interests have more space to breathe. As so the day begins, things go their ways, ... and by the time the woman is done ... she's 'there'. The men have to work to move out as to clean things up ... . In terms of dangerous work the woman that worries of her man ... is also closer to thinking of personal interests, as compared to the man. Who once worrying for his woman at home might not have the luxury of chilling out just too much.
So I think we can understand the part in the Bible where God expresses distaste about homosexuality. We can read how the 'hetero' ideal is basically "thought into" the male "spirit". That at the very least when thinking or speaking in favor of the males potential to accomplishments.
But ... on the same standards can we see why homosexuality eventually outgrows that relevance of the male design. So, in clear talk: When so thinking 'into the future' I deem certain things universally inevitable. Like over the years humanity has grown - we will all ultimately grow to higher cognitive standards. Whether you then believe in eternity or not ... eventually ends up secondary, ... at best. Here we 'have to' begin with the concept of perception of time and age. Well, we can project that the older we get the faster time passes by, ... but while that may be so, we also have to think about our mental adjustment to it.
Thinking of the male ... as in biblical terms ... where by Jesus we have a clear 'old and new' (which is by the way also supported by Jeremiah (31:31+) ... I compare that to being a noob in a video game. In the beginning you know maybe only screenshots and videos. If we're talking of a genre there may be some familiarity to similar games, but ... lets just say we're entirely new to gaming. So you know that you have to push buttons - because - thats how it works. So, learning what which button does ... . Or getting familiar with the logic. So, start button, confirm button, back button ... directions ... check. What a game ultimately holds depends on the game, ... but every 'good' game has some sort of progression. In general an increase of difficulty that ... some games are better and others worse in. There's a lot. Difficulty in the progression of Dark Souls is a whole different chapter than difficulty in Diablo. No, a whole different book, ... a different shelf, ... no, ... section in the library or a whole different library altogether. And so difficulty in arcades. Where, one example are fighting games ... where now humans compete against humans ... in a way the highest in terms of difficulties.
Uhm ... where was I? OK, noobs. So - there is that time one will so require to 'learn' a game 'profficiently'. That yet excludes what sorts of intrinsic secrets a game might hold. So, even 'grinding'. Grinding doesn't exist 'yet'. "Strats" don't exist yet. The only things are the 'learned/learnable' interactions with the games "Matrix". The basics. Which in an arcade sense is "eough" ... considering that there is no 'real playthrough' - where other games with a foreseeable end might hold systems later down the plot-tube.
So, "life is complicated" ... (:"we can make it so").
But so is there also the so called "end game". Thats ... were people have built an existence within a game, through gameplay, and then continue to ply the game, ... eventually pushing the boundaries of what gameplay implies. Its weird. Games in and of themselves are like pocket universes ... with their own science ... should someone bother.
The point is that the game changes in end game. Some more, others less. Sometimes end-game is also just ending the game, sure ... but in a game like Minecraft ... or well, whats the 'goal' of a 'survival game'?
Well, survive. Build a base. Approaching it that way ... you can dig a hold and close the ceiling with a dirt-block and be done. But ... lets say you want more. A ... sustainable home. Growing crops, holding cattle. So you go out, gather resources and build. In creative mode that gathering however doesn't exist - therefore the gameplay is different. There the goal is to build stuff. That can be done in survival too ... with the added feel of ... adventuring the the place. But so - with all the habits that then come in the survival mode, ... once you're 'done' you've gotten used to some ... hmm.
Is this relevant?
Back to ... . The man. A simple creature. ;)... . Eventually we grow older, ... and even men can come to ask questions of personal ... lifetime quality. And then that which used to be simple is no longer all that simple. Because so love occurs, ... what ... chances you got? Between two people - if both were to turn out male - the male 'straightness' requires them to ... be gay. And whether or how that works is ... no longer down to ideology.
Its down to life. Reality.