An Aside Regarding Homosexuality

[Magical Realist]

Everyone judges others through the same filter they judge themselves, so what is "right for me" necessarily colors my assessment of others. So no, what I think is "right" I apply equally to everyone.

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.

 

[Bells]

Everyone judges others through the same filter they judge themselves, so what is "right for me" necessarily colors my assessment of others.

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.

So no, what I think is "right" I apply equally to everyone.

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

That is a meta-ethical question of what is right. I hold the positions of descriptive moral relativism (in that I recognize that morals objectively differ by culture), meta-ethical moral objectivism (in that I believe ethics apply universally), and normative utilitarianism (where the most happiness is sought for the greatest number of people).

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.

So while I do not think homosexuality is "right", I also do not find any reason that they ought not, so long as no one is harmed.

*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.

No, my opinions are not based on the Bible. There is nothing that "ought to be done" about homosexuality.

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

Because there is nothing wrong or not right about it.

 

[(Q)]

The Bible has nothing to with why I do not think homosexuality is "right".

You and I both know that is patently false. Try to be honest for a change.

 

[James R]

wellwisher:

The same was true with homosexual behavior in ancient times. This will not procreate, while bum blasting is unsanitary.

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.

In modern times, because science can mop up after many things that are not naturally sustainable, people assume there is no need for ancient natural morality in the modern world of artificial supplements.

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.

One solution, would be not tax the moral, to pay for the social mops needed by immorality.

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?

Rather let the immoral cover their own tab. If liberals had to pay for their own mops, this would satisfy the system, since they would be self reliant and would not have to impose on others. But they don't pay for their own mops, but try to impose this preventable expense on those who live in ways that save social costs. This is the real argument.

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".

Would anyone be willing to run an ancient experiment with homosexuality where you can only use what was around 2000-3000 years ago, which means no mops?

It's already been done. Homosexual people are still around.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Would anyone be willing to run an ancient experiment with homosexuality where you can only use what was around 2000-3000 years ago, which means no mops

It's already been done. Homosexual people are still around.

Homosexuality was accepted in Classical Greek civilization, which falls right smack in the middle of your chosen millennium.

 

[Trooper]

Everyone judges others through the same filter they judge themselves, so what is "right for me" necessarily colors my assessment of others. So no, what I think is "right" I apply equally to everyone. That is a meta-ethical question of what is right. I hold the positions of descriptive moral relativism (in that I recognize that morals objectively differ by culture), meta-ethical moral objectivism (in that I believe ethics apply universally), and normative utilitarianism (where the most happiness is sought for the greatest number of people).

So while I do not think homosexuality is "right", I also do not find any reason that they ought not, so long as no one is harmed. No, my opinions are not based on the Bible. There is nothing that "ought to be done" about homosexuality.

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.

 

[quinnsong]

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.

 

[billvon]

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.

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.

 

[Magical Realist]

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.

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

 

[Balerion]

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.

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.

 

[wynn]

Bells is right. No one is harmed by homosexuality.

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.

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.

Ah, the power trip!

 

[wynn]

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.

Just like you.

:shrug:

 

[quinnsong]

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.

Abstract concepts aside, what does harm, damage or suffering mean to you wynn?

 

[wynn]

Abstract concepts aside, what does harm, damage or suffering mean to you wynn?

Most of them are things you won't acknowledge or agree on.

 

[quinnsong]

Most of them are things you won't acknowledge or agree on.

Well try me, specifics please.

 

[Balerion]

Depends on what one means by "harm."

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

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.

To what end? What could such abstract discourse accomplish?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Just like you.

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.

Most of them are things you won't acknowledge or agree on.

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.

 

[Bells]

Depends on what one means by "harm."

Since Syne is the one who brought up the subject of "harm", perhaps you should ask him what he 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.

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:

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.

Ah, the power trip!

How so?

How is Trooper on a power trip?

 

[billvon]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bells]

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.

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.