An Aside Regarding Homosexuality

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

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Pretend there are no consequences? Or do the consequences just not matter?

    In 2004, following Lawrence v. Texas, eleven states put anti-gay measures on their ballot. Those measures passed in all eleven states.

    Between 2004 and 2012, homophobic marriage laws and other such restrictions ran nearly perfect. 33-0-1. That is to say, 32-1 until the next year, when voters in Arizona corrected their vote from the prior year and passed a marriage discrimination law. 33-0.

    The impacts of these laws are what you are ignoring, Billvon.

    My tolerance of bigotry, and the question of seeking bigots out, is certainly a viable question.

    However, so is the question of what happens when not enough attention is paid.

    Tell us, sir: Why does what happens to people matter none to you?

    These disputes have human consequences, Billvon. Why are those consequences irrelevant to you?

    Why don't you care about the damage these people do?

    How, exactly, do these peoples feelings, hurt by the prospect of not getting to be superior under the law—that is, hurt by the prospect of being equal to their neighbors—matter more to you than the harm done to human beings by these bigoted policies?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    And in a way, your preference also comes into play in who you are naturally attracted to.

    Discrimination and abuse inevitably follow. We have a history where this occurs.

    But you don't always. You have in the past made spurious allegations and stereotyped based solely on how you judge others. This is a natural course, we all do it. However when you approach another from a standpoint that what they and who they identify themselves as is wrong, then it is not always easy or even possible to monitor your reaction when your initial reaction is one of 'who they are is wrong'.

    I am judging you based on my personal beliefs and morals - which stems that I don't think it is moral to judge someone based solely on their sexuality and declare said sexuality is not right. There is no basis for the belief that homosexuality is not right, or to believe that it is somehow wrong.

    And why are they more affected?

    Being gay is not the cause. Being homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) and not using condoms properly is the biggest issue. Even worse:

    Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination may place gay men at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether they seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services.

    No, the point is that there is nothing wrong with one's sexuality, just as there is nothing right about it. It just is and it is how it is. Just as there is nothing wrong or right about having black hair. It just is that way - to use the religious term - as God intended.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    "The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through sexual contact with an infected person. The majority of all transmissions worldwide occur through heterosexual contacts (i.e. sexual contacts between people of the opposite sex)"---
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    And people differ quite a bit in what they consider "emotional or physical damage to people."

    Because this whole discussion implicitly depends on precisely that discourse.

    No, she doesn't.

    No, we don't. What we have is not a discussion, but a few people in positions of power telling others what is supposedly right and what is wrong.

    I think that what I'm talking about is not rocket science. So I see no need to go into much detail.

    So much for empathy.

    On the one hand, people are instructed to place themselves into other people's shoes, to feel with them, to empathize.
    But when they do, and they don't like it, and say so, they get criticized.

    It's not so much that homosexuality is about harming other people. It's about the homosexuals harming themselves. And "unsanitary practices" being the least concern in all this.

    The common problem in "sex for pleasure" - whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, a human and a thing, or whichever combination or number there may be - is the objectification of self and other in the process.

    Of course, in our culture, we are raised to objectify ourselves and others this way, and to even feel good about it. So people typically see no problem with such objectification ... and psychotherapists earn big moneys on account of that.

    By talking down to Syne, assuming herself superior to him.
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    If only you'd actually believe that and act accordingly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Here's the thing:

    Several of you here are totally, absolutely sure that you are right (about sex, and everything else for that matter), that you know "how things really are."

    And yet you get upset, you feel offended, you find reason to criticize other people.

    Why is that?

    How can that be?

    I would think that someone who is enlightened would have no cause to be upset, to feel offended or to criticize anyone.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    What unsanitary practices?

    And how exactly are they harming themselves by being homosexual?

    And sex for the sole purpose of procreation is not?

    Psychotherapists probably earn more money from people who believe that sex is dirty and wrong, or that their sexuality is wrong.

    Her argument was far superior. Should she not have talked back?

    You talk down to people all the time, do you apply this rule to yourself as well?
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    "Rationality" is not easy to judge. But their standard argument is that being married is supposed to confer social status. This clearly harkens back to the days when an unmarried woman had very little status, but I guess we have to be satisfied that in this case, at least they're only going back a century or two for evidence to support their argument, instead of going back to the Bronze Age where the alleged evidence for most Biblically-based arguments is found. Anyway, if two men can get married (so the argument goes) then it demeans the traditional heterosexual marriages, especially the wife.

    Yeah, I know. If a woman is "allowed" to do something that a man can do (in this case: marrying a man), I don't quite understand how it's demeaning.

    Of course they don't mention the divorce rate, the high incidence of spousal and child abuse, infidelity, etc. It seems to me that these phenomena cast more aspersions on the institution of marriage than two people of the same gender who love each other and are willing to endure public ridicule, insults, discrimination in housing and sometimes even physical violence, in order to institutionalize that love.

    It's not so easy to ignore the Westboro Bastards, especially if it's your loved one's funeral that they're attempting to desecrate. The cops don't let them gather within sight and sound of the ceremony, but still you have to plan your drive there and your drive home carefully, so you don't see and hear their insulting signs and chants along the way.

    Medical professionals tell us that contact with an infected person's blood is the highest-probability vector for transmitting HIV. Although (as an earlier post pointed out--or maybe one on another thread, there are so many about this topic) it's a cliché that all gay men practice anal intercourse, the assumption remains unrefuted (for now) that they nonetheless practice it at a statistically significantly higher rate than we do.

    Doesn't it go back to that hateful little book that causes so many of the world's problems: the Bible? After all, in the USA at least, it is predominantly the fundamentalist Christians who are in the vanguard of the anti-gay demographic. The Westboro Bastards are the vanguard of the vanguard: the reason they picket military funerals is that God hates America for being so tolerant of homosexuality, so he has arranged the world so that our soldiers are being shot at by Muslims. Or something like that.

    A classic Wynnism. You can always find a clever reason for your obfuscation.

    You actually DO need to go into detail, because it's obvious (even to you, which is why you have to go on the defensive) that we really don't understand the reasoning behind virtually everything you post. You fancy yourself an Oracle, and hope that we will spend hours carefully decoding your snarky little epithets, frantically PM'ing each other to compare our work.

    Well you're not, and we won't.

    Right on the first part, wrong on the second. It's about homosexuals being harmed by homophobes. Admittedly, physical violence against them is on the wane, but passing laws allowing motherfucking Christian businessmen to not transact business with them is certainly harmful.

    And how common is that in real life, as opposed to discussion boards, pornography and shock-videos?

    As we get older, most of us mature, and "sex for pleasure" with no vector of affection (or at least companionship) becomes increasingly infrequent.

    Speak for yourself. I've seen all the propaganda and have never found it any more enticing than the billboards that once begged me to use tobacco because it would somehow make my wife look like Raquel Welch. I can't think of anyone I know (well enough to be able to rummage around in their heads) who has objectified himself to any steady and significant level. And that includes my gay friends.

    As for psychotherapy, the #1 reason among my friends for undergoing it was to lose weight. Ironically, one of the other Top Five reasons was to conquer anorexia and bulimia. To hell with sex: American society is obsessed with food!

    He does seem to paint a fresh bulls-eye on his forehead every morning.

    So it seems. Sorry.

    Then whose (mis)quote was that in James's post? I'm only asking because you've probably tracked it down already.
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    I don't have any problem with lesbians, since two girls is hotter than one. Also if I fall asleep they have someone to talk to (Rodney Dangerfield). It was not uncommon in the bible for a man to have many wives, with Solomon, the rooster, with 500 wives and 1000 concubines. That many women, with one man, meant it was allowed for the wives to be affectionate with each other. It is only the gay male that has a bad rap in the bible.

    There are negative aspects of gay, even today, which are not discussed, but contributed to the negative stereo-type in the bible. In Genesis, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot who the nephew of Abraham, is visiting the city. Gay males of all ages from that town, hear of fresh meat, and surround the house where Lot was staying, ordering him out so they could bum blast him.

    To protect Lot, the host of gives the gay mob, a slave girl, which the crowd rapes to death. This rape aspect of Gay is still be seen in prisons, where the male mind gets confinement desperation to breed with anything. The bible negativity against gay, was not against the gay guy who protected the harem, but it was based on gay rape, due to men not thinking with the upper brain. If prison can turn straight men gay, then does this dynamics also play a role in gay in the first place; prison of the mind. Gays seem to say this by implying no free choice or will in the matter.

    The other archetypical gay, that led to a bad rap, was connected to pedophilia. When the Catholic priests were raping boys, this was also gay sex, since gay is defined as male-male. We label it only pedophilia, to hide the gay connection, but the vast majority of church related pedophilia was gay if you wanted to see that statistic. One will also notice a rape element involved due to a psychological prison for the boys.

    Gay pedophilia was also a Greek thing as was pointed out. It reminds me of the joke, how did they separate the men from the boys in ancient Greece? Crowbars. An ancient Greek banging a boy did not mean all the boys wanted to be banged but rather they were raped. Yet we glorify Greek gay as a natural thing and proof of how this is natural.

    These two extremes of gay behavior gave gay a bad rap. There are no examples in the bible, I am aware of, where this level of a negative picture is painted of lesbians. Instinctively, most straight men don't fear lesbians, but think this is hot since it implies patriarch wealth for selective procreation. There is an instinctive homophobia to gay pedophiles and gay rapists, since in the distant past these had more influence in cultures, like Greece. Most males are not afraid of gay Marilynn Monroe impersonators, but may think this is humorous. The modern gay is not the same as the gay of the bible, but the bible gay is still around raping boys and men. These two sides of Gay is where the confusion lies since each side sees only half.
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Lol! This coming from you!

    What defensive? That defensive is all in your mind.

    Talking about yourself again?

    There you go. You don't need me for this conversation. You have already figured out everything, you're now the Oracle and we all shall comply.

    It's the default of life as it is usually lived.

    I think you wildly underestimate how far objectification of self and other goes.

    Whenever you identify with your body, you objectify yourself. Whenever you identify another person with their body, you objectify them.

    Underlying said problem is, again, objectification of self and other.
  14. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Really wellwisher? Then please decipher this babble for us so that we can see that there is no negative reference to lesbianism in your bible:

    26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.​

    Romans 1:26-27 (bolded emphasis mine)

    Pray tell, how are these passages not referring to lesbianism?
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Mentioned earlier by other posters, about anal sex.
    Note that I used the term in quote marks.

    Discussing this with Fraggle, see there.

    As least it has some potential for a higher purpose. Namely, producing useful citizens who may be able to change the world for the better.

    If it really would be "far superior", Syne would be struck down by lightning or some such. Instead, no such thing happened.

    Back to you being a professional martyr again ...

    But I guess it must be really tough for you to take part in these "discussions" - you are totally sure that you are right, that your view is absolute and superior, and yet you find yourself questioned and opposed ...
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    And yet, you have offered no valid reason whatsoever for your so-called morality. But, it's not surprising at all that you won't be honest that your reasons are obviously from the bible, some believes deny that, most simply just point to the bible.
  17. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    wynn are you celibate? You seem to say sex of any kind is objectifying one's body,but at least hetero sex has a higher purpose, so it is better than homosexual sex.
  18. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Is disapproving of homosexuality and homosexual marriage spreading hate?

    I don’t believe that you can justify an anti-gay attitude. It is a prejudicial attitude that arises from social conditions. Should the LGBT community abandon their own visions and plans for life in order to retain approval? Syne’s disapproval of homosexuality is not useful in any way. In fact, he’s being judgmental in ways that are harmful.

    I don’t think you should have sex with that guy because he’s a dick. (helpful)

    I don’t think you should have sex with a guy because he has a dick. (harmful)

    End of story.
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    All sex is unsanitary. Kissing is unsanitary. Oral sex is unsanitary. Intercourse is unsanitary. Do you realize how many germs are spread by this activity? And yet, for all that, there doesn't seem to be any devaluation of sex itself, at least not based on any decline in participation levels. Why do you think that is? Why do you think sex is so enormously important in people's lives that questions of germ transmission or hygiene are viewed as completely trivial? Have you ever been in love with someone?
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Sex for reasons of procreation is also unsanitary. As is vaginal sex, oral sex, foreplay, kissing, holding hands and even opening the door in the toilet in your home for that matter, changing a baby's nappy, pushing the trolley in a supermarket, going to the toilet and numerous other things... All of it is unsanitary. Does that mean we should stop doing any of this?

    All I see in your response to him is you being judgmental, talking down to him and you dodging the subject...

    So, feeling pleasure and joy and feelings of love and desire has no higher purpose? I'm surprised you don't expect everyone to simply undergo IVF, so that sex is erased from the equation altogether.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Only if you were so religious that you could think such a fantasy was even possible...

    The irony of this complaint of yours towards Trooper is that you talk down to people all the time.

    Still dodging the questions? And still on your moral high ground talking down to people? The irony.

    Syne is a big boy. He can take being questioned and talked back to. You don't need to protect him from the 'big bad girls' participating in this thread. He has expressed some worrying views and he is being questioned about said views. Contrary to what you may feel, this is acceptable in society. We aren't meant to simply close our eyes and think of England in such discussions.
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Gee, and while we're deriving our 21st century sexual morality from a 2500 year old book of ancient semitic fables, let's not forget where in the same chapter Lot's daughters get him drunk in a cave one night and rape HIS ass. Is that what you call your family values?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    that's old school thinking. At least by my understanding.

    old thinking was that sexuality 'turned on' at gonadarche, however, at least by my understanding, since the mid '90s its been understood to be a stepped process beginning at adrenarche, which occurs around 10-10.5.

    It follows something along the lines of:
    Attraction -> Fantasization -> Activity.

    I think the percentage of 12 year olds who are uncertain which gender they're attracted to is somewhere around 25%

    I have some supporting literature I can provide when I get home.
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Which means that 75%, quite a large majority, have already figured it out.

    In the USA it's not terribly uncommon for 12-year-olds to already be having sex, so in our country that percentage is probably much higher.

    In any case, they'll have it figured out by the time they're 14.

    Young adolescents who don't know yet which way they swing are often the result of religiously-oriented parenting that insists that only one way is right and the other will take you to Hell.

    I have a friend who was born in Louisiana, and geeze if you think Protestant Rednecks are hard to deal with, you've never met a Catholic Redneck! He dated girls, grew up and married one and had five children with her. She divorced him about the time the youngest kid grew up, and before long he realized that all along he was a gay man living a lie. His kids (bless their hearts) were quite accepting (perhaps they saw something in him that he was blocking out and were just waiting for this to happen) and they call his partner "Uncle."

Share This Page