The ethics of homosexuality.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Undecided, Feb 11, 2005.

  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Last semester in school I bought a book it is called “Morality and Moral Controversies” by John Arthur, and the book has many articles in it about ethical dilemma’s. And I revisited the book after ignoring it for about a month, and I read an article on homosexuality. Recently in my classes and in Canada there is that great debate over homosexual marriage, since in a secular society the religious premises of denying people the right to marry because God declares it sinful is pathetic (according to Leviticus so is a man cutting his hair, which is the book most often citied by the religious hypocrites for the anti-gay fray). What I think people don’t understand is that homosexuality is not deviant, it’s not a disease, its not imo even a genetic thing, it’s a human thing. Looking back at western history, the greatness of Greek, and Roman empires was when they tolerated homosexuality, frankly one of the reasons the Greeks were so at fighting wars was because their lovers would be their fellow solider and they would do anything to save their love. Some of the greatest men in history were homosexual or had homosexual leanings, for instance Abraham Lincoln; Alexander the Great, Octavian, Caesar the list goes on. The modern conception of homosexuality being wrong stems from Judeo-Christian ethics, which are known to repress natural human feelings and emotions by the fear of god, and guilt. But since we have to reject the religious premises of homosexuality, we have to focus on true ethical theory. According to an article written by Richard D.Mohr called “Gay Basics: Some questions, Facts, and Values” he lays out convincingly that the hatred of homosexuals is en par with the hatred of races, or of other sexes. First of all, we must understand that homosexuality or leanings are not confined to that 10% of the population that actually admit it. The homosexual is so prevalent in our society the figures are starling.

    Altogether we are talking about close to 80 percent of the male population having homosexual experiences to orgasm. The numbers are shocking for one reason, because it is not seen. When people think of homosexuals they usually think of a bunch of effeminate men prancing around, talking about clothes, or interior designers or butch women, who like bikes. The reality is that most are normal men/women, they are probably your friend, your next door neighbour, maybe even yourself. My theory is simple, I take sexuality as politics there are extreme’s there is the homosexual extreme which is the 10% of the population who admit it, and then there is the heterosexual extreme who I surmise would be around 10% as well, these people are exclusively attracted to their sex of preference. That other 80 percent of course are in-between, they aren’t gay but they aren’t straight their but a large morass of bisexuals in the middle.

    Gay ​
    bisexual​
    Straight​

    Bisexual is in the middle which is perfectly bisexual, who have feelings towards both sexes, then the areas on either side of that medium is those that lean more towards straight relations, and then those who lean more towards homosexual feelings. Which fits almost perfectly with this statistic: “37 percent had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm in their adult lives”, close to 40 percent of the population live in the region left of the bisexual side of the equation. This is not to say that if one leans to either extreme that person is exclusively that, no they still have feelings for the same sex, or the opposite sex but in varying degree’s. This is why I find the drive against homosexual marriage so interesting, why are so many up in arms when in reality they themselves are probably homosexual themselves, or lean towards it? I believe personally that much of modern society’s homophobia is a reaction against one’s own homosexuality. Men/women who are comfortable enough with their sexual preference have no reason to hate gays. This phenomenon of transfer is important to understand, I liken it to a relationship one has with a bad boss. When a man for instance has a bad boss who belittles him, he doesn’t take out on his boss because he feels he would lose his job he comes home and takes it out on the family, same concept with homosexuality. Many men/women have feelings, and many are “afraid” they may be “tricked” into homosexual sex. One cannot be tricked, one wants it. In order for that person to get rid of that want, they take their self-hatred on homosexuals to get rid of this energy which they don’t understand; essentially they are rejecting their humanity on the basis of mass cultural indoctrination.
    Which goes on the question of how supposedly “straight” societies treats those 10%, the author points out a rather logical case for why hating homosexual’s is immoral:

    There is no question that the mere belief that x is wrong makes it wrong is not logical, ethical, or intelligent. Yet sadly in our world intelligent is hardly ever in the equation. But there is one argument against homosexuals that merit some attention. The argument that marriage is a union btwn a man and woman based on the fact they are/and can procreate. The argument is sound, another article I read on the immorality of sexual intercourse states that homosexuality like premarital sex is immoral because its hedonistic, which has no fundamental meaning apart from pleasure, then I must say so is eating candy. But back to the procreation argumentation, I am sure that infertile couples will be barred from being married, and couples that have menopausal women in the equation, or an impotent man. But those individuals are not being stopped from allowing to get married. The reason is simple, because hatred of gays is en par with hatred of blacks, or of even women. The only reason why homosexuals aren’t getting married is because of irrational conceptions of love. As the author states:

    Homosexuality is natural, as evidenced in Germany with homosexual penguins having sex; they cannot rationally choose to have gay sex, or to be gay in the first place. Being a homosexual or leaning is a natural occurrence, some people will “no it’s unnatural” for various reasons and the author offers a retort:

    And guess what else is unnatural, marriage. Also one has to ask themselves why would a homosexual “choose” to be a homosexual considering that he/she is at increased risk for harm being done to this individual? This is the typical homosexual:

    Which happens a lot in the black community, I was watching BET and they were talking about the alarming amount of black college students who were having homosexual sex but did not classify themselves as homosexuals, and still had sex with their girlfriends. Frankly I didn’t find it shocking, it was to be expected, and black culture frowns on homosexuality much more then white for instance. Islamic culture is particularly repressive, in Saudi Arabia if found having gay sex you will be killed. The sad fact is that most of the people in the crowd watching the beheading are homosexual, or leaning themselves, it could very well been them in that situation. This thread is not here to talk about one’s personal sexual preferences, or experiences. This is merely a thread for intellectual complementation about how irrational our society is in relation to homosexuality.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Perfect Masturbation without hands Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    Fags are victims of the homo-gathegory, just like goth's, rockers etc have their own 'clubs', which are all disliked in some levels.
    Leather-faggets forcing stereotypes whilst pissing on the more political homo's, are restraining individuality, eventhough they might think just the opposite. As long as love between the same sex is considered to be unlabelled, and does not huddle together the individual and the group, then there is a change of lowering the irrational shock the society gets from the ass-cock encounter.

    And which moreoever adds to the contradiction are the liberation attempts from the group that has been looked down upon. This just forces the spite bible-puppets have against homosexuals.
    Forget the 'rally of liberation' and leave the truck-lesbo look home. I'm not saying play the masque, but rather advicing people not to turn into a culturally aware Jay-fagget's (the guy from queer eye, fuck he pisses me off).

    There are better ways to define ones identity than being a full blown out S/M lesbian.
    And before someone says "but they like being what they are! Who are you to talk!", well.. in that case goth's must be a hoot for you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    Undecided,
    actually in ancient Greece, apparenetly there wasn't such an all-embracing regard for PASSIVe homosexuality, including effeminacy. After all these were the Indo-Europeans who had taken over the more ancient agrarian peoples who DID accept femininity, aslo in men
    But the latter's modus operandi was/is WAR, and they will not stand for homosexuality is it reveals effeminiacy

    actually, this attitude is reflected in how you represted it in your post. that people may ALl homosexuals are 'prancing effeminites' etcet, instead of 'NORMAL homosexuals' (emphasis mine)....see?

    Even some homosexuals are prejudiced against effeminate men, and try and thus elaborate their sense of masculinity by dressing up in cliched 'manly' clothes, taking on the images, and also getting involved in S&M which is a way of protraying machoness, and of punishing oneself for BEING Queer!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Thersites Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    535
    If consenting adults freely choose to do something which does not directly harm anyone else then it is no-one else's concern. Most people use "natural" to mean something they enjoy. Looking at a computer screen and typing messages is unnatural too as our eyes and fingers did not develop for that purpose. However, it is natural because we designed computers for that purpose. We must not confuse our own personal tastes with the word of god or the dictates of human nature.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,980
    Perkele

    The other day, someone was yapping at me about "respect" for "beliefs". It's an honest conflict I have: it's difficult to be entirely respectful to a "belief" assertion founded around a lack of facts. However, that point aside, as it's a digression from the present discussion, I happened to write,

    See, on the one hand, you're touching (barely) on a fair issue; you're reaching a bit with the melodrama: "Leather-faggets forcing stereotypes whilst pissing on the more political homo's, are restraining individuality, even though they might think just the opposite."

    Let's try a comparison: "Stupid women forcing stereotypes while denigrating their more developed sisterhood are restraining individuality, even though we know they think just the opposite."

    I'm attempting to approach a similar underlying truth, but the reality becomes this: Stereotypes forced still must demand a fertile audience. Those to whom the appearance of stereotype bears functional value create that value for themselves. See, mincing faggots annoy me in many ways, too. But it's the same way in which "redneck" or "good ol' boy" stereotypes annoy me. And the good ol' boy bone-breaking handshake, half-drunken swagger, booming voice and false enthusiasm are at the heart of that annoyance, much as the limp handshake, fake wiggling of the ass, and that gadawful lisp.

    Do the stereotypes say anything about the people who live them? Only that they're human. But I find the faggot considerably less intrusive--physically--than the good ol' boy. I can put up with faggots. Good ol' boys crowd closer, speak more loudly and demanding, and tend toward invasive or unpleasant physical contact more than faggots. The crushing handshake, the jolting clap on the shoulder, the deodorant-and-cologne reeking I-love-you-man arm around the shoulder ... it doesn't settle the nerves at all, either, to stand in such generally-consistent personal/political contrast, either. Statistically, I'm ideologically more at home, and thus burdened with less things to argue about, among faggots than rednecks.

    So for me the question becomes why rednecks matter. I might say that I feel they've compelled me to pay attention through a series of disagreements that would otherwise not be worth having, except that public policy is involved. I might even be able to paint a solid case in support of that assertion. But still, at the end of the day, 'tis I, and I alone, that chooses to give rednecks enough credit to warrant my concern. I choose to worry about what takes place in "redneck" culture.

    Just like I try not to worry about "stupid woman" stereotypes. Over the years, the raw numbers suggest I've spent exponentially more time in the presence of women meeting diverse standards of the "stupid woman" stereotype, but for me to seize on it and regard women as such would be entirely erroneous, in having overlooked my mother, who is certainly not a "stupid woman" in her conduct, priorities, or desires; I would be overlooking that of the two smartest living people in my direct acquaintance, one is a woman who outshines me by vast oceans of knowledge, perspective, method, and comprehension. In fact, the prevalence of certain aspects of "stupid woman" stereotypes in my life says more about me than it does about women. Take soap operas, for instance. I loathe them, but am also familiar with the last fourteen or so years of the abominable Days of Our Lives, and perhaps the last nine of the slightly less offensive, but no more worthy All My Children. Rather than saying anything about women and soap operas, this says something about me. How is it that I keep ending up around women who watch soap operas? Seriously. What the hell is up with that?

    If I'm immersed in what I consider "stupid woman" culture, why? How? What is it about the "stupid woman" that makes her so important as to notice and care about the condition of her existence?

    The solution, then, is to deal with people as human beings. If I accept fears of a "stupid woman" stereotype, I will come to further exacerbate the problem and therefore sharpen my own fears. If I deal with a human being with all her faults, well, those are unique faults in their own combination and proportions, and inside them is a unique person who needs to be accounted for in addressing the problem. Certainly, it makes things more complex, but it stands a greater statistical chance of success.

    If you have a stake in something, do you wish it ill? Generally no. If I invest my fears in a "stupid woman" stereotype, I have a stake in that: I don't want to see my investment squandered. Therefore I will tend to wish for the legitimacy of the "stupid woman" stereotype, which brings about all manner of complication, including the choice to surround myself with even more women meeting my internalized criteria for what equals a "stupid woman", which reinforces my anxieties, which increases my stake, and so the cycle continues.

    Such an excellent example of what I'm saying: these are your priorities, as well as the "bible-puppets'".

    There are better ways to define one's point than such exaggerations.

    For instance, one night I wandered up to a bar I'd heard promising things about. A bit rough, a homo-leather haven, all sorts of dirty, scandalous talk of immorality in the bathrooms and getting handcuffed to the bar, &c. It seemed like a great place to test a certain theory I have, but that's only barely relevant. Essentially I have no idea whence come the paranoid fears of homophobes who worry about being hit on by men. Over the years I haven't been particularly drawn to the gay bars because I simply don't get hit on. It was a modest room, not particularly stylish, and could have used some better lighting. It certainly did not live up to its reputation.

    Funny story: so one time, we're sitting watching Emmanuel Louis (a jazz quintet, not the actor) play a set at the Rainbow, which coincidentally is not a gay bar, when a guy widely known for his ebullient heterosexuality leans across the table and explains how he thinks I'd look good in a leather miniskirt and some fishnets and heels. Punchline? Never heard anything remotely like it in a gay bar. Most I ever heard was a lesbian friend say, "He thinks you're cute." Who? "The guy you gave a cigarette to." Which one? "The rasta-man." Really?

    Apparently the thought of her whispering his secret so embarrassed him that he fled the club.

    Seriously. Apparently in the time between him telling her, and her telling me, and me looking around for him, he left. Gone. Not a trace.

    Even the notorious lesbian bar is a pretty nice room, and the leather bulls don't show it tremendously. More often than not, we'd be wrong in pinning the whip on the bull.

    These are but a couple of the reasons I find your point an exaggeration. Such outspoken bulls do exist, but I come across them rarely by comparison.

    We must be careful when mixing such delicately volatile arguments. To the one, the flaming faggot has every right to be a flaming faggot, just like the good ol' boy has the right to be a good ol' boy.

    "Stupid women" are stupid people, stupid human beings first and foremost. We should only worry about their womanhood if we truly absolutely must. Stupid rednecks are stupid people first and foremost. That they're rednecks only matters if it absolutely must. Stupid homosexuals are stupid people, first and foremost. And just like the rednecks and good ol' boys, some are just annoying, and some are legitimately stupid and dangerous.

    Goths? They've actually got one up on gay men: better music with a deeper sense of romanticism and the romantic.

    Aside from that, extending the S&M identity to such a general application, or the flaming queen, is a bit like indicting the whole of popular culture for a Peter Murphy album.

    Perhaps superstition should not have gone out of its way to label it:

    The second link is especially fun; it's essentially a gay timeline, some of which is less reliable than the rest, but we can see the Christian influence was already running through the empire by the time Rome got around to making an issue out of it.
     
  9. Perfect Masturbation without hands Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    293
    Suck on my puny, short, wrinkled reply tiassa.

    Yeah. Different models inside specific cultures. Elected and shared concepts affecting certain groups at certain times. Of course these models are born, as long as the mental models of the individuals are somewhat consistent. The problem is when there are many branches of mental models, all trying to fit inside a larger cultural model.

    Of course you could say we all fit in the human scale. But that somewhat defies the purpose of this- since we know for a fact there are no consensus between us all.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,980
    Might do you some good; your replies won't be so short, wrinkled, and puny. Or are we waiting for a little blue pill?

    All I'm after, Perkele, is that if we focus only on the superficial aspects of identity, that's all we'll see. It's up to each of us. These are the things we choose.
     
  11. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    I think people haven't really grasped what my thread was saying...the distinction btwn hetero and homo really doesn’t exist, if it does its tenuous and rare. It seems our world loves the dichotomy of black and white, ur either this and that. But we as humans aren’t that simple, and the stats I showed only showed those who:

     admitted to having homosexual relations to orgasm
     who had homosexual experiences to orgasm

    It didn’t factor in those who did not experience those experiences to orgasm, that isn’t to say that those individuals didn’t have feelings for someone of the same sex. This idea that there is them and us is ridiculous, a farce, and is based on belief not fact. What I find interesting about Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics is that it rejects homosexuality, but if by definition whatever God made is natural, and since homosexuality is natural, didn’t God essentially contradict himself or was that just another mistake he tried to rectify by making it into a sin? If we are made in God’s image…well u get what I am saying. Just wondering what bible thumpers really think (assuming they do).
     
  12. Qiothus II Majikal Man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    240
    God did not create us in his own image nor did he make religions to tell us to judge each other(stupid humans). Homosexuality is not wrong, it's just practical. Those who are, so what. Let it be.
     
  13. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    When people say that homosexual behavior is unnatural, they don't mean that people don't do it but that it goes against natural law. Natural law of course is created by God. We're of course talking behavioral not the attraction; homosexual behavioral usually is the individual's choice.

    Prove it. If I had a condition that turned my skin green but had no other affect, would it not be a disease? Your perception of what is a disease is based upon your own desire, nothing more, and cannot be used to justify any real argument.

    Again, you haven't proven this. Some Spartins did practice homosexual behavioral, but it seems to me more about control and domination. Spartins weren't particularly a favorable group. They let newly born babies starve to death if they were found to have any imperfection.

    There's no proof whatsoever that Abraham Lincold was homosexual. He was married.

    Okay, your post answers yourself. Why, if homosexuality was so tolerated, did not these characters come out and say they were gay, proclaiming their new found "freedom" as today's gays do?

    Having hatred of homosexuals is different from believing homosexual behavioral is wrong.
     
  14. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Mr. Okinrus,

    Do animals which practice homosexual behavior go against God's natural law too? Are they depraved sinners?

    Is homosexual behavior then done intentionally? Otherwise you can't really blame them for it.


    ---

    Tiassa, you are one sick f
     
  15. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    When people say that homosexual behavior is unnatural, they don't mean that people don't do it but that it goes against natural law.

    It obviously doesn’t go against natural law if nature does it. What does go against natural law is marriage, you’d be hard pressed to find animals who are monogamous, most animals in order to spread their gene pool as much as possible have sex with many partners. The fact that marriage bounds a man to only one partner is unnatural, because he cannot spread his seed, and cheating imo is an action taken by partners in a relationship to attempt to spread their seed to more partners.

    Natural law of course is created by God.

    That’s not true of course, that’s a belief. Firstly we assume that there is such a thing as natural law that exists out of science which imo it really doesn’t because those interpretations are based on subjective beliefs not facts. The facts are that naturally homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom, and the only reason why its not here is because we are indoctrinated from our “religious” authorities that it is wrong. We are not being human by rejecting this part of our sexuality.

    Prove it.

    It’s proven already in my intial post, at least 80% of the American population has had a homosexual experience, and I doubt they choose that. I don’t choose to have an erection etc. The reason why you believe it is “deviant” is because you’ve been taught that, ignoring the facts is part of the belief game.

    If I had a condition that turned my skin green but had no other affect, would it not be a disease?

    But not everyone has that condition, I assert everyone is not exclusively gay or straight so its just a natural part of being human, and as a result its not a condition, the condition would be if you were totally gay or straight that would be odd imo.

    Your perception of what is a disease is based upon your own desire, nothing more, and cannot be used to justify any real argument.

    A disease is usually something that can be identitifed, there hasn’t been any genetic i.d of a “homosexual” or “heterosexual” predisposition. So the onus is on you to show me that it is.

    Again, you haven't proven this. Some Spartins did practice homosexual behavioral, but it seems to me more about control and domination. Spartins weren't particularly a favorable group. They let newly born babies starve to death if they were found to have any imperfection.

    Look at the time Christianity was enforced in the Roman Empire and its collapse as a result. Rome flourished when homosexual activity was tolerated; it collapsed once it was not. Now imo that is not even close to being the reason why the Empire fell, but it is telling. Ever since the enlightenment period we have been trying to shed the stereotypes, and overtly wrong assertions about life. One of them being that homosexuality is wrong, when it reality its the opposite.

    There's no proof whatsoever that Abraham Lincold was homosexual. He was married.

    Most homosexuals (as you would term them) are married, or are engaged in heterosexual relations. I think that’s natural because we are all to some degree bisexual but since you believe in a black and white world you’d be shocked….and Lincoln was homosexual leaning and there is proof:

    http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/30/lincoln/

    Okay, your post answers yourself. Why, if homosexuality was so tolerated, did not these characters come out and say they were gay, proclaiming their new found "freedom" as today's gays do?

    Because they didn’t have to everyone knew they had homosexual sex, and they weren’t gay because they loved women too. They lived a much more natural life then what you are advocating. Homosexual sex in that time was a thing of beauty, and heterosexual as a necessity. Those people didn’t live in a self-hating society that rejects its own feelings under its feelings of guilt.

    Having hatred of homosexuals is different from believing homosexual behavioral is wrong.

    No its just as bad, because since they cannot control their emotions its hating them for what they cannot control, and thus is just as bad as racism, and sexism. So I have contempt for your lack of intelligence and insight. Be gone!
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2005
  16. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    although personally i am not a fan of monogamy. i have seen people being married togther for many many years and feel a kind of admiration for such devotion. cause i dont care what generation, it MUST be hard to do....though whther that sacrifice is needed is up to the people willing to take it

    also, i am sure some bird species etc also form life long partners

    now, i HATE cheating. it's deceitful......i realize it can be exciting too, but it really hurts the other when found out......and the other too with the guilt, oftentimes.
    so i woud encourage open relationships more so than devious cheating. agreeing with a stable partner that you need diverse erotic fulfillment....
     
  17. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    Undecided, don't tell Okinrus to go away. You come here looking for a fight, and Okinrus has taken up the challenge. What point would there be to coming here if everyone agreed on everything? Debate club with no debates?
     
  18. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    What I found offensive to my intelligence was not his argument it was the typical nonsensical argument presented by the majority of the population and I welcome it. What I took offence to was how closet homophobes like him (who essentially hate themselves as I described in my initial post) try to copout of their hatred by saying this nonsense:

    Having hatred of homosexuals is different from believing homosexual behavioral is wrong.

    That type of ignorance I have no tolerance for.
     
  19. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Southstar, I see no reason not. Adam's sin affected all creatures. God in the OT says to kill any animal who kills a man. Whether you want to say it's the animal's fault or not is a different matter. Also, some have claimed that so-called homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom is nothing more than male-bonding.

    Well, I wouldn't say intentionally, but there's some element of choice, you know.



    Undecided, you're linking natural law with nature. Nature doesn't necessarily correspond to what God intented, for reasons I said before, and you can't base your morality on what animals do. Animals kill, cheat and steal.

    To say it's not true is a belief also. You were trying to show the Judeo-Christian belief that homosexuality is unnatural. I'm only pointing out that what they mean by unnatural is any activity that goes against God's natural law.

    You're wrong. The natural law isn't a belief, but something that it's instilled in all man's conciousness. You can argue who created it or which laws should be obeyed, but within all humans there's an almost unanimious belief that murder and stealing are wrong.

    And likely 100% of them have lied. Doesn't make lying any more right. Bandwagon appeal doesn't work, and leads to mob rule. But I'd really have to question the 80%. What does a homosexual experience mean?

    Different shades of green? There's no well-defined definition of a disease, at least how it relates to individuals. Sure, a group of highly qualified doctors determines whether some attribute is a disease or not, but this chioce is completely based upon those doctors judgements. And often, a disease to one person isn't to other. For instance, one man's acne scars might be his way to show toughness, another's acne scars might be his bane in life. But none of this relates to anything. To you, homosexuality isn't a disease. To me, it is. And to others, especially those who don't want to be homosexual, it is. Then, there are those inbetweeners, those who don't want to offend someone. But really if your straight and do not want to be homosexual, then you may as well consent to calling homosexuality a disease. Furthermore, I haven't said what causes homosexual attraction: it could be a genetic disorder, it could be something psychological, it could be the result of abuse, or it could some combination of these. In any case, the attraction alone cannot really be chosenl it's not sin.

    Rome conquered and enslaved thousands. Meanwhile, they spent money lavishly, and created spectacles of blood-thirst. But, well, if you want to raise them up to the pinnacle of perfect, by stating their society tolerated homosexuality, it's really up to you. But I beg to differ. Their society didn't tolerate homosexuality. They tolerated homosexual prostitution. And by the time Christians really did gain control of Rome they were already in decline, being attacked by vandals and huns.

    Unless if someone publically admits to being homosexual or is somehow observed, you know, it's not proof.
     
  20. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Undecided, you're linking natural law with nature. Nature doesn't necessarily correspond to what God intented, for reasons I said before, and you can't base your morality on what animals do. Animals kill, cheat and steal.

    That’s Bull shit and you know it, firstly u are assuming incorrectly that natural law is from God I make no such judgements because it’s not based on facts. What I base my judgement is on what nature does, that is what is by definition natural law, the law of the jungle. God is not proven; his opinions are a personal expression and not one that is to be taken into the context of a wider society. So unless you can prove to me there is a God your entire argument falls to pieces. Secondly since we are decedents of those animals it is only natural that we are wired like them in many ways. Science proves, and empirical observation has also proved that homosexual sex is natural and is thus by definition cannot be “wrong”. Now in a Judeo-Christian sense sure, but that again is not a basis for an argument that’s an intellectual copout. About the animals killing,stealing,etc that's what positive law is for.

    To say it's not true is a belief also. You were trying to show the Judeo-Christian belief that homosexuality is unnatural. I'm only pointing out that what they mean by unnatural is any activity that goes against God's natural law.

    Not really because what I am saying is proven its there, what you are saying is not proven, it purely based on the belief that x is true because some omnipresent being says so. There’s a big difference one (mine) is informed opinion theirs (or your’s) is belief. Again I don’t deny that Judeo-Christians believe that nonsense but if they are truly people of the book they shouldn’t be cutting their hair, or eating pork, or eating shellfish, the list goes on. What the Bible does is restrict what we humans do naturally, yet supposedly the morals in the book are somehow based on natural morality.

    You're wrong. The natural law isn't a belief, but something that it's instilled in all man's conciousness.

    So by birth we know all the moral tenants? Then using that logic there should never be murders, rapes, etc. If you were to put a child in a cage for his entire development without any human interaction I doubt he would have this “natural law” the only law that exists is that of survival, the rest is add on’s.

    You can argue who created it or which laws should be obeyed, but within all humans there's an almost unanimious belief that murder and stealing are wrong.

    That’s of course not true, there are those out there who advocate murder, and in India murder is a fixture of the social landscape as evidenced by the millions of dead baby girls, or sacrificial murders of children in pagan religions, etc. I don’t believe in this crap your spewing because it doesn’t exist.

    And likely 100% of them have lied. Doesn't make lying any more right. Bandwagon appeal doesn't work, and leads to mob rule. But I'd really have to question the 80%. What does a homosexual experience mean?

    I explained in the initial post did you even read it? Or did you read the first paragraph for your idiotic responses? Read my entire post 3 or 4 times and your questions will be answered, and you still didn’t answer my question is 80% of the American public admitted to having homosexual experiences how is it a “choice” when only 10% actually admit they are homosexual?

    To you, homosexuality isn't a disease. To me, it is.

    I showed how it isn’t you have to show how it is, a disease is not natural in the sense there must be a observable difference, physically, genetically, and biologically. If you cannot show this, then your argument is as good as shit. Like I said in my initial post homosexuality and heterosexuality don’t really exist, they are just extremes and most if not all of us are in the middle. I don’t believe in homosexuality because I don’t believe that we as a race are predisposed to only one sex.

    But really if your straight and do not want to be homosexual, then you may as well consent to calling homosexuality a disease.

    But that’s the most stupid thing you’ve said so far, if you’re a “heterosexual” and you don’t want to be a homosexual something is already wrong. One doesn’t “want” one is, if that supposed heterosexual is choosing here, then he is by definition both hetero and homo, and is repressing his homosexual side by saying “it’s a disease”.

    Furthermore, I haven't said what causes homosexual attraction: it could be a genetic disorder, it could be something psychological, it could be the result of abuse, or it could some combination of these. In any case, the attraction alone cannot really be chosenl it's not sin.

    Unless you can show it is a “disorder” what you are saying means nothing, meanwhile the facts seem to show that at least 80% of the people you know are “sick”.

    Rome conquered and enslaved thousands.

    Rome was tame compared to the Christian empires of Spain which killed 10’s of millions, or Catholic Hitler and his “benevolent” concentration camps, remember Hitler used God as an excuse for his eugenic fantasy. If I had to choose btwn being conquered by Rome or Spain, or Hitler’s Germany there is no QUESTION in my mind what I would choose.

    But I beg to differ. Their society didn't tolerate homosexuality. They tolerated homosexual prostitution. And by the time Christians really did gain control of Rome they were already in decline, being attacked by vandals and huns.

    Roman society was a very homosexual society, and I think it was more for the upper classes because it was considered so beautiful. But Christian ethics was surely one of the reasons why the Empire fell.

    Unless if someone publically admits to being homosexual or is somehow observed, you know, it's not proof.

    Stop being so idiotic, Lincoln was gay there’s the proof you don’t need pictures, or admissions. That’s like saying “if you don’t have pictures or have the murderer admit to the murder it didn’t happen”, please get a brain.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2005
  21. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    It's not a different matter actually. If it's not the animals fault then it indicates quite clearly that it needn't be treated as something done deliberately - and as a corollary, cannot be a sin. Unless people get punished for things they don't do?

    And what would that be? Or is that just crass generalization? Qualify please.
     
  22. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Okay, I'll clarify. My argument wasn't to prove my position right but to prove yours wrong. You stated before that Christians believed homosexuality unnatural and then attempted to prove it by animal evidence. I stated what most people really believe when they say homosexuality is unnatural, which, if true, means you began your argument on the wrong track. But, again, there is at least one difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, in that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Whether this is a disorder or not, and how severe, depends on an individual's own beliefs. After all, a similar case arises with pedophila. A grown man or women is sexually attracted to children. The general public calls this attraction a disease because the attraction seems to us dangerous and harmful. Homosexuality of course is not nearly as dangerous as pedophila, but the general form should apply.

    I don't see this going any where. Animals are different from us in many ways. They don't speak, they don't wear cloths, they don't have any code of conduct. Why muts what is natural to them be natural for us?


    Spain didn't kill 10's of millions in the Inquisition. http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article4.html

    Hitler was originally raised a Catholic, but in his later years he was not a practicing catholic; in fact his regime persecuted the Christian church.

    So what? Read his interview in table talk. It was all a sham. He remained quite silent of his anti-christian beliefs , but it was only to wait for a politically opportune time.
     
  23. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Just as a reminder, you didn't qualify your belief either. Not so quick to judge.
     

Share This Page