An Aside Regarding Homosexuality

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Balerion, Mar 2, 2014.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,660
    Doesn't work that way with sexual orientation. If you are heterosexual, then engaging in gay sex would be wrong for you. But since I'm gay, it is appropriate for me. Likewise, heterosexual sex would be wrong for me but right for you. Judging people by one's own standards just isn't realistic since there are huge variations from one person to the next in freewill, psychological makeup, raising, intelligence, and genetically acquired traits that must be factored in. What is possible for me may not be possible for someone else. And vice versa. That's why generally speaking it's a bad idea to make moral judgments about people you don't know personally. More than likely you are just projecting your own repressed unconscious traits on them.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,133
    But with things like sexuality, not everyone is the same. Just as in the case of sexual attraction to another (and this is not just about sexuality), not everyone will be attracted to the same looks, personality, shape. So applying what is right for one's self to others or judging them based on yourself does not really make sense.

    Which is similar to what some religions do to others who do not belong to their faith which ultimately leads to discrimination and abuse.

    The problem with this method or way of thinking is that without realising it, you will speak or treat others who go against what you think is right differently. Because you are judging them based on your own personal beliefs and morals. So when you say that you do not think homosexuality is right, you are judging homosexuals in a very negative manner and without realising it, you are applying your personal beliefs against others who you do not believe are right in regards to their sexuality - more to the point, you believe that their sexuality is not right - and without realising it, it will cloud your judgement and how you view things.

    For example, there are some people who believe that inter-racial mixing is not right. Because it is not right for them and because they are only attracted to a particular race - which is obviously their own. So they judge people who are in inter-racial relationships. It inevitably leads to abuse and to discrimination.

    Had you said homosexuality is not right for you, no one would dispute that, because you are not a homosexual. Just as a homosexual will say that heterosexuality is not right for them, no one would find issues with that because they are not heterosexual. I will openly say that homosexuality is not right for me, because I am not attracted to the same sex, ergo, I am not a homosexual. But it does not mean that homosexuality is not right - which is how you are putting it. As such, the way you say it, makes it seem as if you believe homosexuality to be wrong in general. If I am wrong, then please correct me, but when you say you don't think homosexuality is right, you are applying a moral judgement on the whole by declaring it to not be right - either morally or even in nature, for example.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Who would be harmed? Harm or possible harm could apply to both homosexuality and heterosexuality equally - for a variety of reasons. I don't see how or why homosexuality should be singled out for that reason.

    Because there is nothing to be done about one's sexuality.

    Because there is nothing wrong or not right about it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    You and I both know that is patently false. Try to be honest for a change.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,370
    wellwisher:

    There were a lot of "unsanitary" practices in ancient times. The germ theory of disease, for example, was unknown to both heterosexuals and to homosexuals.

    Your "ancient times" only seem to date back a couple of thousand years. Yet homosexuality has most likely been around since the dawn of humanity, a million years ago. It is also found elsewhere in the animal kingdom. I'm not sure how you can argue that it is not "naturally sustainable". I'd say that anything that has been around for a million years and is still around today must be sustainable, on its face.

    You have not explained why homosexuality is immoral. Above, you only claimed that one particular sexual practice is "unsanitary" (and that without evidence).

    Do you care to expand?

    All living has environmental and social costs. That applies as much to conservatives as to liberals.

    Do you advocate that conservatives pay for their religious mops? For example, you could abolish the tax-exempt status of religious institutions such as churches.

    Actually, it's not clear to me whether you think all social services ought to be "user pays".

    It's already been done. Homosexual people are still around.
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Homosexuality was accepted in Classical Greek civilization, which falls right smack in the middle of your chosen millennium.
     
  9. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Bells is right. No one is harmed by homosexuality. They are, however, harmed by homonegativism. Your sexual orientation bias is enacting stigmatization. It’s not only a matter of taste for you. You’re clearly expressing your disapproval of homosexuality. Indicating that you feel it is slightly less human in nature, that they are less desirable, and less fortunate. Victor Frankl said that through guilt people have the potential to change for the better, but you’re placing false guilt on homosexuals. On the other hand, homonegativism is proven to be harmful, so you should be ashamed of yourself. Clearly, I disapprove of your behavior and with good reason.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2014
  10. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    What I find so difficult when dealing with people that believe homosexuality is deviant behavior, is that when you try to ask them to be specific about why, you get the usual Bible quote or they just feel that it is wrong. When debating someone with a belief or feeling that is purely emotional and irrational, that is usually lacking in specifics (why do you believe or feel this way?" Oh, I just do and I am entitled to my opinion!") and thus no valid argument to begin with, you find yourself at a huge disadvantage.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,723
    Often if you drill down deep enough you find vague references as to how anal sex is repellent to them. (Disregarding that lesbians generally don't do that, and that it's not even the norm for gay men, and that heterosexuals sometimes do that as well etc etc.) Wellwisher's objections to homosexuality, for example, seem centered around that issue.
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,660
    That gay men all enjoy and participate in anal sex is another stereotype. I read somewhere that only like 30% of gay men actually do that. I for one never liked it. Here's a blog post that I think is applicable:

    "Anal sex is not a prerequisite for being a gay man. Conversely, being a gay man is not a mandate for enjoying anal sex. Many gay men do not have anal sex. In fact, oral sex and mutual masturbation are more common than anal stimulation among gay men in long-term relationships. And while many people stereotypically view anal stimulation as a homosexual male act, anal sex is a sexual behavior, not tied to a group of people whether they describe themselves as homo-, bi-, or heterosexual. Physical, emotional, social, and sexual attractions, not behaviors, are key factors in a person's understanding of his or her sexual orientation.

    People of all sexual orientations fantasize about and/or try anal sex. Some find they like it while others dislike it. Some people use anal stimulation while masturbating or during sexual play (see the Related Q&As listed after this answer for examples). Studies indicate that about 25 percent of heterosexual couples have had anal sex at least once, and 10 percent regularly have anal penetration.

    Many people fantasize about anal sex and other taboo sexual acts. This is easily seen through the content of pornographic films. Much of the pornography available, marketed toward people of any sexual orientation, provides extreme and stylized examples of fantasies. As a result, it's easy to assume that these images are the "right" way to have sex. Anal sex is portrayed as quite normal in porn imagery, but, in reality, it occurs much less frequently than other sexual behaviors. Many will find that the fantasy of anal sex is pleasurable, while the reality may not be."---http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/not-all-gay-men-have-anal-sex
     
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    The entire reason I started this thread was to get Syne to answer specifically why he deemed homosexuality to be wrong. It was his idea to do so. Yet here we are, and he's still being slippery.
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Depends on what one means by "harm."

    It's possible to come up with such concepts of harm, damage, suffering that everyone is hurt by everything everyone does, or that nobody is hurt by anything anyone does, and everything inbetween.


    Ah, the power trip!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Just like you.

    :shrug:
     
  16. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Abstract concepts aside, what does harm, damage or suffering mean to you wynn?
     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Most of them are things you won't acknowledge or agree on.
     
  18. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Well try me, specifics please.
     
  19. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Obviously, it is meant in the sense of causing emotional or physical damage to people.

    To what end? What could such abstract discourse accomplish?
     
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    The difference is that Bells is quite happy to explain her personal beliefs and morals, so we can have a discussion. You typically post only vague innuendos but stop short of actually telling us anything meaningful about the things you like and dislike, approve and disapprove, tolerate and criticize, except at the most general level.

    You are very careful about letting us know who you really are. We all know who Bells is.

    Perfect example. Why do you back away from telling us these things, so we can have the argument? If you want to talk about morality, you have to talk about the things that morality is about.

    All you do is sit to one side and make snide remarks. Your contributions to our discussions are utterly worthless! If I weren't a moderator and could do it, I'd put you on IGNORE so I wouldn't get suckered into hoping that THIS TIME your post might actually contribute to the discussion. It's like having a mascot pop up in the corner of the screen every few minutes, saying something pointless. But at least mascots are entertaining.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,133
    Since Syne is the one who brought up the subject of "harm", perhaps you should ask him what he means by "harm".

    I would absolutely adore if it someone could come up with a reason as to how or why someone (say, a complete stranger just off the street) is harmed, damaged or hurt by a homosexual couple getting married or having sex.

    For example:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    How is this woman harmed, damaged or hurt if a homosexual couple get married or have sex? Why would she be hurt, harmed or damaged by what complete strangers do in the privacy of their own homes, for example?

    I would say the harm comes from people who feel hatred towards the LGBT community and individuals and who then take it upon themselves to not only abuse them, but to make vague references that it just is not right. Because it is hurtful and offensive and it deliberately sets them apart from everyone else.


    How so?

    How is Trooper on a power trip?
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,723
    From an objective viewpoint, it doesn't harm anyone. However, some people are offended by what others do or say, and so claim injury by something that does not harm them directly.

    From an objective viewpoint, that doesn't harm anyone. However, again, some people are offended by what others do or say, and so claim injury by something that does not harm them directly.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,133
    Certainly, if they witness something that offends their sensibilities.

    But I fail to see how anyone could make that argument based on the mere possibility that someone may be doing something (that they cannot see, hear or feel and have no knowledge if they are or not) that they would find offensive.
     

Share This Page