My intentions in my previos posts was not to insult anyone, and I have never stated that it would be harmfull in the way you are emplying.
Perhaps I could explain my perspective with this analogy: Someone offers you a key, but you havent seen anyone before and you do not know where it goes. (This is like the bunny, hold out your foot infront of it and it yould try to have sexual intercourse with it, because of ignorance). If you ask the giver, where does this key go to and he says, to that door, then you will use it in the right way. (As the man, who can learn from others that the organs have a purpose.)
However , I dont despite the same sex relationships and who am I to stop them from doing what they want. Im simply stating that man and woman relationships is the moral norm that leads society and deviations should be accepted but not embraced.
Morality is subjective. No one is telling you to embrace anything either. What consenting persons do is their own business. Love is not just sex. You have no choice in who you love.
You know that isn't true. I'm about to get very un-pc by pointing this out but where was HIV first discovered?
HIV is a primarily heterosexual disease. Unless you believe that the vast majority of Africa is gay? HIV first appear, in the West, by way of drug users. Anyways sex is not the problem, it is ignorance of sex that is the real tragedy here.
Anytime you exchange bodily fluids you have potential for disease transmission. Homosexual sex, just like hetero sex, can kill you. And it won't make babies. It's an evolutionary hazard with no immediate evolutionary reward, unlike heterosexual sex, that sometimes produces pregnancy.
As was stated somewhere else homosexuality may serve the purpose of limiting population growth when a popultion either grows too fast or too much. BTW, only 2 out of every 100 heterosexual acts result in a pregnancy.
Also, I thought that you said that life was more than proving one's fitness to reproduce?
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]
[QUOTE][B]HIV is a primarily heterosexual disease.[/QUOTE]
Yes. But have you forgotten what was going in on in the early 80s?
[QUOTE][B]Unless you believe that the vast majority of Africa is gay?[/QUOTE]
No, HIV got out of Africa primarily through prostitution along the Kinshasa Highway. Prostitution is, of course, another thing I consider immoral but we'll save that for next time. Why HIV is so widespread in Africa now I do not know, probably a combination of drug use, lack of monogamy, and refusal to use rubbers.
[QUOTE][B]As was stated somewhere else homosexuality may serve the purpose of limiting population growth when a popultion either grows too fast or too much.[/QUOTE]
I considered that already but did not find it credible. There is no evidence to indicate an increase in the proportion of homos to heteros with increasing population. Instead changing cultural values tends to affect the proportion (example: US vs Ancient Greece) which seems to support many cases of homosexuality being an artifact of the environment or the culture.
[QUOTE][B]BTW, only 2 out of every 100 heterosexual acts result in a pregnancy.[/QUOTE]
That's an interesting figure. Are all of these "heterosexual acts" intercourse? And do they include the ones where contraceptive is used?
[QUOTE][B]Also, I thought that you said that life was more than proving one's fitness to reproduce?[/QUOTE]
Life is more than proving fitness. In fact I'm arguing that there are more to morals than self-preservation. However consistent I have had to go to the a naturalistic perspective and argue from there as well.
I agree. "Christians" shouldn't go around trying to wage a "holy" war against homosexuals. I heard about one recent incident in Texas where a gay student was murdered and a bunch of "Christians" had an outdoor event a few weeks ago on the anniversary of the murder, 'to celebrate his death and entry into Hell.' And that's a close quote, I think they even played a soundbyte of some minister saying that on the radio.
I don't agree that homosexuality is the 'right' way to go, but I'm not saying that they should be denied their choice.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90: [B][QUOTE][B]In that case, does one also choose to be heterosexual?[/QUOTE]
Good point! Yes. As long as there is the possibility of being homosexual, one *must* choose, at some level, to be heterosexual.
BTW, you opened the door for this when you insisted that people aren't 100% heterosexual.[/QUOTE]
The point remains that since most people "sit the fence", more or less, and we happen to live in a culture (US) that generally hates and fears homosexuality, or at the least most people are uncomfortable with it, the social pressure to live a hetero lifestyle is quite strong.
In other parts of the world it isn't like that.
[QUOTE][B]You still have not explained how homosexuality is harmful to anyone.[/QUOTE]
Homosexuality, as far as I can tell, is not harmful. But that does not make it moral. I think it should be allowed to be practiced in the open. I think homosexual partners should have the same legal rights as nonmarried heterosexual partners. I'm not sure about my opinion on homosexual marriages, I feel like I could argue that either way.
My problem with your reasoning is that you think that moral values are based entirely on what is and is not harmful to others. You don't recognize the possibility, that with some kind of ID and a sense of "purpose" for gender differences, it becomes more complicated than that. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sure, it's possible, but it certainly isn't probable, and I see no evidence for ID, and I see no reason to condemn love between two people for no good reason.
You do realize, of course, that you have not given any reason for why homosexuality isn't moral, other than "the Bible says so".
The Bible also says that slavery is OK and that it is an abomination for crippled people to approach the alter in temple.
quote:It is still around because it doesn't hurt anyone, and it actually helps with social bonding.
What does not hurting anyone have to do with it still being around, from a naturalistic perspective? Cannibalism is quite popular in the animal kingdom, probably more so than homosexuality, and you can't argue it doesn't hurt "anyone".
One of the reasons certain traits are still around is because they are neutral in effect.
The reason cannibalism is still around, I imagine, is because they occur in species which reproduce copious numbers of offspring (mice) or in species where there is a lot of competition for females, rangeland, and pack leadership (lions).
quote:As for social bonding, see my war analogy.
I already addressed your war analogy.
I said that the bonds of war happen because people are coming together to fight a common foe, not simply because shooting occurs.
quote:But what harm does homosexuality cause to herterosexual people, Gene?
quote:I have not claimed that it did harm heteros. You're building a strawman.
So, are you saying that your morals are relatively arbitrary, and even though you think that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, it is still immoral, because the Bible says so?
Then I would say that your position lacks reason.
quote:How can you possibly equate the act of murder with two people who happen to be of the same gender loving each other? That is completely irrational.
quote:Because the analogy proves that being predisposed to a behavior does not necessarily justify that behavior. I still stand by the analogy.
So, is your standard of morality begin and end at the bible, no matter how illogical and unreasonable it is?
[QUOTE][B]I am not saying that "a genetic predisposition = morally OK."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]I am saying that the LDS statement is utterly wrong in it's strong implication that gay people aren't that way by nature.[/QUOTE]
quote:I didn't get that implication from reading, or rereading it for that matter.
I certainly did.
[QUOTE][B]I have many gay co-workers and friends.[/QUOTE]
quote:You are implying that my opinion is based upon a lack of experience around homosexuals.
Homophobia generally is based upon a lack of ecpreience with openly gay people, yes. (Homophobia might be too strong a word for your views, I'm not sure.)
quote:However, it is equally valid for me to claim that your opinion is based upon your being around homosexuals all the time, and therefore you have become biased.
Gee, let's see...who is more likely to have a realistic view of what openly gay people are like inside a community; someone who interacts with gay people and someone who has never met an openly gay person?
quote:I suggest we leave our respective environments out of it. The ideal environment is probably in between these two extremes anyway.
LOL! My environment is hardly the Village or the Bay area, Gene! Since the vast majority of Michigan is, shall we say, extremely conservative and the north branch of the Bible Belt, Ann Arbor has become a Mecca for all those Michigan people who are "different"; artists, musicians, free-thinkers, atheists, gay folks, hippies, liberal political actiivists, etc.
It's where all the wierdos who were run out of town for being different come.
[QUOTE][B]If you want to think that being gay is immoral, then fine, but it is not rational in the least to say that it isn't natural, as there is a lot o' homosexual behavior in nature.[/QUOTE]
quote:I will allow that it is "natural" in the sense that it occurs in nature (and its presence in nature has no relevance to morality). I do not allow that it is "natural" in a different connotation, that it is a part of God's plan.
My fault for not being clear.
See, this I have no problem with, because you have decided that you are believing something because you believe God wants you to think a certain way. I certainly think you are wrong, and I don't think you can justify your belief in any other way other than it being from the Bible/your religion, so I will object on those grounds. I will also object on philosophical and ethical grounds, but not on religious grounds.
[QUOTE][B]Didn't God make them the way they are?[/QUOTE]
quote:"God made us, and made our weaknesses as well. The test is if we can overcome our weaknesses and immoralities, that is, if we can prove that our sense of reason and morality is stronger than our genes. If we can, then we are valiant and noble creatures indeed, and have proven true agency."
(From: The World According to Gene90; 2002 edition )
See, I think it is unreasonable to expect every human on the planet to be/act 100% heterosexual.
quote:By the way, God also made sociopaths. I'm sure that under different circumstances you would have pointed that out by now.
quote:Originally posted by gene90: [QUOTE][B]It's funny you should mention war, though, because I think it was the ancient greeks who's soldiers used to have gay lovers because they believed that the loyalty and devotion would be greater, thus would protect each other more fiercely.[/QUOTE]
Actually homosexuality was rampant in Greece, even outside the military. Even the word "Lesbian" is derived from the Isle of Lesbos, which was a Greek city-state. The widespread homosexuality of the Spartan army could have partly been because it was believed to form close relationships, but it probably had everything to do with the fact that those men didn't have access to their wives for years at a time.
Now tell me, if being gay is simply an expression of a person's "nature" (that people do not choose to be gay), why was it so common in Greece and not in other cultures?
It goes back to the bell curve I was talking about.
(Bear in mind that this bell curve is probably skewed in favor of more hetero and fewer homo, but it is a curve, nonetheless.)
The small number of people at the ends of the bell curve are "very" straight or "very" homosexual. Everyone else in the middle could probably respond either way, to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon circumstance and cultural influences.
IOW, I never said that people didn't choose to be gay, but that fewer people choose it now because the social pressure to not be gay is so strong.
I think that most of the people who come out these days are probably quite far to the end of the "gay" side of the bell curve because there is risk to one's personal safety in a lot of the world, let alone teasing and harrasment.