An Aside Regarding Homosexuality

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

  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    That's called trolling.

    How do you figure that?

    You haven't explained at all why this is problematic. All you've done is say that it is, and condescend to anyone who disagrees with you. Don't you think it would help if you tried to make a case for why you're right?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Yeah, yeah, I understand that, but why do we have this thread in the first place?

    Suppose I said, "Why do people believe skin colour is a moral issue?" I'd be banned, and rightly so.

    Why don't people just f*** off and leave us alone.

    Maybe it's because they have conflicted sexuality themselves and can't come to terms with it. I really don't care about their problems as a matter of fact.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    I bet they are. They probably fancy some of it too.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,349
    Well, we know some do. There are a lot of Ted Haggards out there.
     
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That or they're just peeping Toms. In their mind they are at least watching. Then they come running home squealing to Mom and Dad what they caught you doing. It's an infantile version of voyeurism, seated in the need to scapegoat others for their own unresolved guilt, probably sexual in nature. At the root of this is blame-shifting, which is one of the markers of psychopathy. I find it hard to imagine that there could be a personality that expresses homophobia which would not fail a standardized diagnostic for psychopathy.
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Are you suggesting I should be banned for asking the question?

    For whatever it's worth, I doubt you'd be banned for asking why some people are racist. Presumably, you'd be asking in an effort to better understand the reason for the hatred. And, maybe, help the bigots understand they're wrong.
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    It was in response to a moderator requesting a different thread be started to discuss this issue so he could explain his ermmm.. disturbing and disheartening.. statements..

    Personally, I don't think that should be a ban worthy issue. From the outset, racism is something that is widely discussed and it's a great opportunity to explain to people who are stupid enough to hold such views, how and why they are wrong and hope some of it sinks in.

    Because people who believe like that make a part of society and their beliefs unfortunately affect access to health care and block people's civil rights. It's better to know who they are and try to help educate them and show them how and why they are wrong than to try to shove them away and forcing them to fester in their hatred, making the situation even worse.

    There have been reports that show that people who are that distinctly homophobic tend to act that way to hide their own homosexuality or attraction to the same sex. Which is sad in and of itself.
     
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    And? I already said, "No, not the "gayness", just "men who have sex with men", according to the CDC."

    That link did not go into the possible causes for the increased prevalence of black gay infection, and from everything I have read, it pretty much stumps everyone, as blacks (even gay) are less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior (i.e. use drugs before/during sex or not use condoms).

    ...Again, what is it that they do to warrant your "moral judgement"?[/QUOTE]

    Keep yer shorts on. Having to catch up on all these replies leaves me with less time to compose my reasons. I do have a life outside of this forum.

    Yes, I understand that, since you may espouse meta-ethical moral relativism, you may believe that moral "opinions" are easily malleable. That is not necessarily so.

    Also, I am using the term "homosexuality" in the sense of sexual behavior, not orientation.

    Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning "same", and Latin sexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

    Yet the risk of HIV is so much higher for MSM.

    A persons color is readily demonstrable as innate, while all responsible scientists always qualify statements of evidence as "strongly suggesting" rather than any incontrovertible proof. Also, self-reported lack of control is equally prevalent among a host of compulsive behaviors.

    So I give you credible statistics and it is an "excuse".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Straw man. I never said HIV/AIDS was caused by homosexuality, only that transmission rates were higher, which is empirical evidence.

    I can be offended without being emotionally hurt. Perhaps you cannot?

    And? MSM are just more likely to engage in further risky behavior that compounds the problem. That source goes on to say:
    The study authors estimate that if receptive anal intercourse were only as risky as vaginal intercourse, HIV cases would fall by 80 percent to 98 percent among gay and bisexual men over five years.

    Yes, because the actions/opinions of others always excuse our responsibility for our own actions [sarcasm].

    It could not possible be that I have a life outside of this forum and that the limited time I have to devote to it is taken catching up on these very replies [sarcasm]. Perhaps unlike yourself, I prefer to cite references for my reasoning instead of just talking off the cuff. Much more constructive for people to have the opportunity to debate points in references rather than just sling ad hominems.

    And regardless of my reasons, I have already said that I condemn the behavior while not demonizing any individual or group. That should suffice, but no doubt you have a much looser definition of "homophobe", as anyone who has any slightest negative opinion of a behavior.
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I take you do not agree that a good excuse pardons actual harm then? Kind of my point.

    See, you were only hurt because you "[took] some of the responsibility for [your] country being the way it was". You had an active role in allowing those opinions to hurt you. Had you made the choice that you bore no such responsibility perhaps you could have simply agreed with the sentiment without feeling hurt.

    Way to miss the point entirely. Again, you have to talk strictly about the worldwide statistics (where many cultures do not necessarily identify MSM as homosexual), where the US statistics very clearly do attribute the highest rate of transmission to MSM. And again with the straw man. I never said anything like "it is just a gay disease", so your accusation of me lying is transparently false, and demonstrable of you lying.

    But I already addressed this. Homosexuals are more at risk. That heterosexuals transmissions are greater worldwide is simply because there are so many more heterosexuals. But keep playing numerology with the statistic.

    What evidence has "debunked" anything? Do you have a link to the post, or just talking out of your hat? Where have I been defensive, other than to correct obvious straw man arguments? We are not talking strictly about opinion but about morality, which is a matter of personal integrity.

    Sure you are not judging. :bugeye:

    The point of this thread was explained in the OP. And if this is a "target thread"...
    • If I am the target, I have invited it.
    • If staff is a target, they made themselves one by posting off-topic about trolling.

    The latter should have been handled by either ignoring it or taking mod action, instead of derailing a thread.

    If you do not like this thread in EM&J, feel free to move it to Religion, where it started.

    First, you will know when I have given my reasons, no need to guess.
    Second, now you have moved from the straw man that I am Christian to the more specific straw man that I am Catholic, even though I have elsewhere advocated increased access to contraceptives.

    Yes, but we all know you like to make mountains out of molehills. I do condemn heterosexuals that are irresponsible and promiscuous, as I have already told you elsewhere. But perhaps you need to read the title of this thread.
     
  13. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    This is correct.

    This is incorrect. Having a meta-ethical stance of any kind does nothing to make the reasoning for any give moral judgment problematic.
     
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    No one has the right to legislate acceptance (i.e. "entitled to... [not] being condemned"), as this violates one of the most fundamental humans rights...the right to free thought. Again, "homosexuality" can refer to sexual behavior, not just orientation. And again, ad infinitum, behavior can be condemned without demonizing any person or group, as one "bad" behavior does not dismiss other potential virtues.
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Strawman hypothesis. If you were paying attention to what I had actually said you would have noticed that I explicitly acknowledged that anal sex was more risky than vaginal sex, I even explained in broad terms why that should be expected to be the case. The point you're attempting to engage me on is not the point that I was actually making here - that is, it's not an issue of homosexuality, it's an issue of anuses and large intestines.

    Predictably, another strawman. This isn't the point I was making, it's not even remotely implied anything I have actually said. The point I was making that all the available evidence suggests that people making moral judgements of homosexuality causes harm to homosexuals and prevents them from accessing the tools that would enable them to prevent themselves from doing harm to themselves. This seems to contradict your stated position.

    Finally, you're a moderator. More than that, you're a moderator who has had much to say about the conduct of their fellow moderators. You're not doing a very good job of comporting yourself in the way that you appear to suggest others should.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    And as I advised you previously, if you are going to take the time to make such obscene statements, you need to ensure you are able to explain why you happen to hold such obscene views - such as the views you are yet to explain as to why you believe "homosexual behaviour" is wrong.

    I'm sorry, I was under the belief that your homophobia stemmed from a lack of education. I had not realised your outdated beliefs stem from your personal morals.

    Because this makes it better?

    Yes, we know what it means.

    Perhaps you can explain why you think "homosexual behaviour" is wrong.


    And as you have been reminded numerous times, homosexual behaviour does not cause HIV. Lack of protection is what makes it a problem and we have explained why this was the issue.


    Do you choose what sex you are attracted to? Is your heterosexuality your behaviour?

    No, it is your misrepresentation of credible statistics while openly disregarding the factors for such figures is what makes it an excuse. For example:

    As you are constantly reminded and continue to misrepresent and disregard, why transmission rates are higher. Really, it's even in the links you provide and misrepresent.

    If you call your butt hurt response not being emotionally hurt, sure.

    That's not exactly what he was saying....

    Religion is now "Open Government"?

    Time to start obliging.
     
  17. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    Syne, do you not realize how absurd this statement is, on its face?
     
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Again, you're misrepresenting the report. It isn't men who have sex with men that is the root cause of such numbers, but unprotected anal sex. At least according to the report. The headline "Biology leaves gay men susceptible" is erroneous. It has nothing to do with biology. Gay men do not all by default engage in anal sex, nor do they by default do it without protection.

    That's ridiculous. First, the article absolutely did go into possible causes for the increased prevalence among gays in general when it advocated condom use and a change in how some areas treat homosexuality as a crime. Secondly, it isn't exactly a secret as to why gay black men are so disproportionately at risk for infection. This paper sheds some light on the matter. In short, many black MSMs do not identify as gay, and therefore do not heed the warnings directed at the gay community. The reason for this is likely due to the amount of homophobia in black culture.

    So do we. And you've never been anything less than verbose in your time here, so let's drop the act. Try prioritizing your time: This thread was your idea, so let's go ahead and answer the central question first, then worry about the rest of the replies.

    So for you it's all about what presents the greatest risk? You don't condemn, say, heterosexual vaginal intercourse?

    How about lesbian sex? Do you condemn that, as well?

    So you don't believe it's innate, then?

    What "further risky behavior?"

    We all have lives outside of the forum, and you've never been shy about expressing yourself here. You've also posted several lengthy replies in the days since this thread was started, leaving me--and others--to believe that you're just trying to duck the question.

    And we're just supposed to take your word for it?

    Let's hear your reasons, then we can decide if you're full of crap.
     
  19. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    No, you made the erroneous assumption that I ever said it was solely about homosexuality. Seeing as that demographic is the most at risk and, in some countries, account for the most new infections, they just so happen to have the highest risk of causing harm. But this thread is about homosexuality, so why should I be talking about anal sex in general? That would be a bit off-topic.

    Really? So if a homosexual really wants to use a condom someone's moral judgment will somehow prevent that? And access to treatment may be problematic:

    Many white and interracial couples believed that if the HIV positive partner has a low viral load and is taking HIV medication, the risk of HIV transmission is lower. The findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that some gay couples are abandoning condom use in response to beliefs about advances in HIV treatment and testing. - http://news.sfsu.edu/gay-couples-condom-decision-making-and-condom-use-varies-race

    How so? Is simply having an opinion that is not shared by the majority of moderators somehow inherently wrong? And other moderators have also already had plenty to say about my conduct. Your point?

    I do not need to "ensure" anything of the sort. Like I told Balerion, if you really want my reasons in a timely fashion, quit wasting my time arguing about not getting them. I have a life, and demands on my time, outside of this forum.

    So now opinions that differ from yours are "obscene", huh?

    Yes, backhanded ad hominem duly noted.

    I suppose it does not if you insist that condemning a behavior necessarily requires demonizing the person/group. I do not. That is your personal problem.

    And as you have been reminded, it is a straw man (lie) that I ever said homosexuality causes HIV.

    Again, do excuses condone harmful behavior? I suppose for a group that is so adamant about having "no choice" perhaps their ability to exercise their choice of safe sex in the face of condemnation is out of the question?

    Whatever comforts you.

    Well, you might want to split all the off-topic troll talk first.

    You have no entitlement to my time. Get over it.
     
  20. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I think it's clear now that Syne has no intention on answer the central question of this thread. A regular member would likely face moderation for such a stunt. But, thanks to the impeccable decision-making of the administration, Syne is no longer subject to the rules of the forum.

    I'm done chasing cowards. Close it if you like.
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, you framed the discussion in those terms when you used the risks associated with anal sex to justify your morality in regards to homosexuality, and now that you have been, once again, shown to be misrepresenting the science for the - what is this, the second time now? Or is it the third?

    So which is it? Are you morally opposed to homosexuallity? Or are you morally opposed to Anal sex?

    Because it is specifically anal sex that puts them at the most risk (role versatility exacerbates this further).

    Now you're just being outright dishonest (well, even more so). Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I originally said, but yes, when laws are framed around peoples moral judgements it does prevent that.

    Maybe you should go back and reread my previous posts, or take some time perusing some of the original papers rather than (once again) relying on someone elses interpretation of it for you.

    Once again, you're being dishonest and twisting my words to suite your own ends and construct a strawman hypothesis.

    If you're comfortable being a hypocrite that's fine, I guess, but you're giving the rest of us free passes to ignore any criticisms you might offer about moderators trolling chatters or conflicted interest.

    You think you're the only person with carbon world obligations?

    Maybe if you can't meet the time requirements it's time to think about stepping down.
     
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Seconded.
     
  23. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    That headline is not erroneous, as anal sex is a biological susceptibility prevalent among MSM and contributory to the transmission rate among that demographic. But who said that "all by default engage in anal sex, [or] by default do it without protection"? Seems to be a straw man.

    The only thing that article said about the cause was:

    There were other differences: black men were less likely to have access to medical care and more likely to have sex with other black men.

    So no idea what article you are talking about.

    So black men who have sex with men or men and women are less likely to use condoms than black men who solely have sex with women. So even though straight black men are generally the most likely to use a condom, this does not hold for other black sexual orientations.

    Good to know.

    I set my own priorities.

    I do condemn irresponsible and promiscuous behavior of any orientation, and HIV risk is not the entirety of my reasoning.

    I do not believe it has been conclusively proven so.

    Drug use, mental illness, etc..

    Believe what you like. You can always test your hypothesis, and I have already told you how.

    Oh, I am sure you have already formed an opinion on that which my reasons will do nothing to change.
     

Share This Page